As one who grew up in an evangelical church, earned an M.Div. from an evangelical seminary, left the ministry, but have not abandoned my faith, I have a somewhat different view of things than most might. What is conveniently referred to as Protestantism includes a very wide and rich variety of expressions of faith. I am uncomfortable with the manner in which they are often lumped together as if they can be adequately characterized by simply not being in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions. Luther's revolt against Rome was as much political as religious, or he would not have enjoyed the protection of powerful rulers such as Fredrick III, and would not have ignited the revolt against Rome. To ignore the others who evolved religious traditions that are in many ways reactions against practices, policies, and traditions of the Roman Catholic church, such as Calvinists and Anabaptists, is giving Luther more credit than he deserves. The Episcopalians (Anglicans) were created for political reasons by Henry VIII ostensibly for reasons less lofty than Luther's. Yet all these groups, from the Orthodox and the various forms of Catholics (Roman Catholics are not the only Catholics), to the Protestants - Liturgical, Baptistic, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and others - all share core beliefs that Lewis described as Mere Christianity. Hell, though a (non-standardized) shared belief, is not a core belief, even among all the Evangelicals.
I feel as though discussions of the impact of Protestantism, particularly critical analyses, often use an idealized alternate possible history (where Luther and Calvin never created their churches and new religious traditions) for evaluation. Would there really not have been a rise of individualism? No Enlightenment? (And therefore no basis for the American Revolution and Constitution?) Is this not magnifying issues one may not appreciate while ignoring the rest of the complex web of religious and social developments that are, at least peripherally, connected to the Reformation and the subsequent rise of Protestantism? Is this as unjust as using the Roman Church's treatment of Galileo as proof that it is anti-science while ignoring the scientific contributions of Roman Catholics such as Augustinian Friar Mendel and Jesuit scholars?
There are valid criticisms of evangelicalism, not the least of which is preaching "cheap grace", what I call "transactional salvation", the recent rise in some circles of the "gospel of prosperity", and entertainment-focused megachurches (sometimes referred to irreverently as "Six Flags Over Jesus"). In the same vein one could criticize Roman Catholics for "magical theology" which can invalidate baptisms because the word "we" was substituted for "I" in the ritual (the wrong magic words were used). A case could be made that the Orthodox and Catholic churches promote a mild form of idolatry in the devotion and prayers offered to icons, saints, and Mary. (I confess to being something of an iconoclast.) Personally I find Orthodox worship impressive and moving, but also something of a spiritual spectator sport and ultimately unsatisfying for a constant spiritual diet.
I have friends who have abandoned corporate worship, and some have rejected the faith in which they had grown up. Most of them feel betrayed by a local congregation or a denominational body. Most have a legitimate basis for feelings of betrayal. (I know that is a harsh word, but the stories I have been told justify its use.) The interesting fact is that, though most were Evangelicals (because numbers), they include former Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well. The most common thread is that they were made to feel unwelcome, or shamed for asking the wrong questions, or were the victims of malicious gossip. Yes, even the former Orthodox. I am glad you have found a home in a congregation where you feel welcomed and can explore and grow in knowledge and faith - where there are no thought police or confusion regarding the distinction between sin and some social convention peculiar to certain classes within middle America.
I feel every tradition and church within Christianity has strengths and weaknesses. Some congregations are nurturing while others are toxic, and probably most are somewhere in-between. I try to take Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants the way I take anyone else - one at a time and prayerfully, understanding that we are all in the process of becoming who we will be. Some people just require more patience than others.
Great reply here, Steven. Thank you. I learned a few things too. I agree that "Protestantism" is a very broad term. And it's a tiny thing, perhaps, but I would push back on the notion that Anglicanism was "ostensibly" created for reasons less lofty. Old Henry was a whoring sociopath who wanted to marry his mistress and that's why Anglicanism exists.
Would there not have been a rise in individualism if not for the Protestant faith? No Enlightenment? No American Revolution? Good questions. I think there very likely would have been a lot of this. But in this dimension, Protestantism did play that role. But it wasn't a monocausal event, so it's not analogous to saying the Roman Church's treatment of Galileo is proof that it's anti-science because I don't deny the impact also of the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years' War, the execution of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution, the invention of the printing press, the rise of the middle class and expansion of European trade, global exploration making contact with China, India, Islamic civilizations, and indigenous American societies, and more.
It's pretty ironic to apply the phrase "transactional salvation" to the very faith that was born as a rejection of indulgences, at least in part. And sure, we could also take shots at other faiths, but that feels to me like a bit of whataboutism because this essay and conversation were not about other faiths, but about this one. That said, I do like to write about religion and theology from time to time, so I may work my way around to it. But yes, I concede the criticism you make re "magical theology" and idolatry. We're on the same page.
"Personally I find Orthodox worship impressive and moving, but also something of a spiritual spectator sport and ultimately unsatisfying for a constant spiritual diet."
I'd love to hear what you mean by it being a spectator sport, that the clergy do most of the visible action while the choir sings most of the service? Yeah, good point, and again, agreed. But I disagree that the tenets of the faith itself make for thin spiritual gruel.
"I am glad you have found a home in a congregation where you feel welcomed."
I appreciate the kind words but I'm not an Orthodox Christian. Or a Catholic, which another friend asked me after reading this. Although in high school if you had asked me what my career plans were, I would've told you I was planning to become a Jesuit monk. But unlike the Jesuits, I'm not anti-Protestantism, at least not any more than I am anti-Catholicism or anti-Judaism, which is to say, not at all really. Although, as noted above, "Protestantism" includes a lot of stuff, and I do consider the American version of the faith, especially the transactional and prosperity stuff, a perversion.
It's not only those two issues either. The American version is vastly more individualistic and less communal. Also, the revival movements over the years have resulted in altar calls, evangelical crusades as well as greater evangelical influence overall, more overtly emotional preaching, and a much stronger populist streak, all because Americans seem to crave a powerful, if not cinematic, conversion experience. And I think that just completely misses the point and is actually rather immature, much like the American attitude to alcohol. Europeans, on the other hand, simply grow up with wine in the house and it's a normal part of their lives and they're not so toxic or weird about it. Same goes for their Protestant faith.
"I try to take Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants the way I take anyone else - one at a time and prayerfully, understanding that we are all in the process of becoming who we will be. Some people just require more patience than others."
Though I spent the better part of my life in Baptist churches, I developed some "unorthodox" views of Baptist practices and doctrine. A common method of evangelism (creating a faith crisis, sometimes through fire and brimstone sermons, which is used to force a conversion experience) combined with an over emphasis on the Security of the Believer (often sloganized as "Once Saved, Always Saved", which I believe reflects Calvinist roots) emphasizes the conversion event - in my mind to the detriment of Sanctification of the Believer (summarized as growing in the faith over time to become more Christ-like - which requires deemphasizing the Priesthood of the Believer doctrine, that Baptistic churches hold very dear). There is another path - a slower model that I see in non-evangelical conversions such as C. S. Lewis described in his own life - which I believe leads to a more stable and healthy faith. My idea of Transactional Salvation is based on my experience in the Baptist Church where respondants to an alter call are led to say "the sinner's prayer", and are told the transaction is complete. It gets presented as if it is a business contract - you express contrition / regret for your sins and offer your life to Christ, and receive eternal salvation in exchange (a grossly simplified explanation, but done to emphasize my point). I am too much a mystic to accept such business-like trivialization of key components of the Christian faith.
I am more critical of Evangelical practices simply because of my intimate knowledge and experience in those churches, but I see the weaknesses of other churches as well, having studied comparative religion and having been involved in Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Salvation Army churches at length, and attended services at Roman Catholic as well as Russian and Coptic Orthodox churches to a very limited extent (have even spent a few Friday evenings in Synagogues). What can I say; perhaps I am a bit of a spiritual voyeur. ;D I served as a Chaplain at a National Boy Scout Jamboree. Our instructions were to minister to the spiritual needs of any participant regardless of their religious status or affiliation. The Catholics thought I was Catholic, the Protestants were sure I was one of their denomination, and the Jewish people were surprised that I was not Jewish yet did all I could to make sure they could safely get to their services and back to their camps. I am not dogmatic regarding the relative correctness of any mainline Christian church or denomination. (Pun intended.)
Excellent response Steve and right in line with my thinking on this.
I was raised PCA—very Calvinist and told growing up Catholics weren’t Christians because they worshipped idols and prayed to Saints and so on. Then I met actual Catholics and got out into the world and at this point to me the Apostles Creed is the gold standard. Everything else is preference. And I’m fine with how it varies (unless it’s straight apostasy of course.)
I personally have no issue with the trajectory of individualism and think that it has brought us to a place that, while perhaps spiritually unfulfilling for some (many?), has become materially and especially intellectually fulfilling for more. While I obviously can't speak for everyone, I think it's clear that many people (myself included) have found deep fulfillment that could perhaps be described as spiritual simply from intellectual pursuits (maybe they're the same, at least for some?). Individualism and collectivism both have their benefits and drawbacks, and I think what's happening lately, largely thanks to internet-driven atomization among other things, is that fewer people can accept the trade-offs that come with individualism. I personally believe they haven't considered the trade-offs from collectivism, especially since they have never lived them, and I think they're more motivated by an avoidance or fear of trade-offs in general, but that's neither here nor there. Individualism's trade-offs are being questioned, and that's the reality with which we must cope.
That all being said, Elijah's absolutely speaking my language with regard to the historical trajectory of the individualistic ethos and what has happened in the United States in particular, which is derived from the Enlightenment values that only exist thanks to the individualism and questioning of authority AS a value, encouraged by the Reformation. Where I might part company with him, or at least have a different interpretation, is that I think the Protestant faith hasn't gone anywhere, and has instead taken on an increasingly secular aesthetic. It feels passe to talk about social justice/antiracism/"wokeness" being a religion now, but if I'm right to characterize the late 2010s-2020 or 2021 as the most recent explosion of revivalism--a new Great Awakening--then I think what we're seeing now with those not retreating into the toxic socialist-nihilist-Third Worldist mush of left wing populism, is the same kind of settling that always followed American revivalist explosions. The specific concerns of those revivals has always changed, but the character never did except with the seemingly secular aesthetic (which honestly isn't all that new; the revivals of the late 19th century were very secular in many ways).
But again, Elijah's point is sound; the individualism at the core of Protestantism is what brought us to where we are; politically, socially, spiritually. Perhaps the best way to put it is that we would do well to recognize this heritage, even us atheists.
I don't think we need to return to a collectivist way of thinking, so much as balance the plane to meet the full range of human needs. God willing, America will always be individualistic, but maybe we could learn to unify around the shared beliefs that matter most. And the creed, hymns, etc are not a bad place to start - even an atheist might find enough common ground in Christian ethics to feel kinship around the big picture. Great comment. There are certainly trade-offs in both directions that must be weighed.
Well said, and thanks for clarifying! Like I said you really spoke my language with your insights into American Christianity (Protestantism in particular). I’m actually wrapping up my masters thesis that charts the potential connection between the Salem witchcraft crisis and First Great Awakening via the sociopolitical mechanism of questioning institutional authority (short version: Salem definitely hurt institutional authority and that was not forgotten by several people even 50 years later during the revivals). My suspicion is that this was the beginning of a pseudo-cyclical trend (pseudo in the sense that it can’t be predicted, but it certainly reoccurs), and that fits into your thesis, at least regarding the American expression of Protestantism.
Excellent topic, Jabster. Where do you stand? I tend to be anti-Paul in that I prefer what was before and find it philosophically richer. I'm not persuaded by the greater emphasis on simple faith over righteous living, on the crucifixion not as a catastrophe to be explained but as the entire mechanism of redemption, or on Jesus as cosmic Lord rather than a Jewish prophet. I like some Jewish Christian traditions that reject Paul but keep the Gospels, largely because I find Johannine theology to be some of the most sophisticated stuff in the Greek Bible.
Oh gosh...so much great stuff to unpack here. I'm going to post a few comments, and read it again and I will be back.
YES that repentance is a lifelong process, not a singular or infrequent event as suggested by Evangelicals and their altar calls. You have to pick up your cross every day. I like to call it "God's holy sandpaper", smoothing out the rough edges. And we may pick up some damage along the way requiring some additional buffing out.
Concerned about the need for works vs sola scriptura. At what point is the amount of works "enough"? Of course, sola scriptura can lead to cheap grace and spurious salvation of insincere, evil people. But there are no sins too big for Jesus to cleanse. But still not sure where to draw the line on how much "clean living" is holy enough, or if it's all Isaiah's "filthy rags" and we should just do the good works we're called for as best we can.
I've always had a problem with the Roman Catholic magisterium and Holy Tradition, in part because it tries to do too much sometimes and is quite arbitrary at other times. However, it is folly to deny that every Protestant faith has some kind of phantom magisterium and Holy Tradition. A good example is the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture in Evangelical churches, and all that springs from that like young-Earth creationism. There are others. To the Roman Catholic Church's credit, it has "pressure tested" its magisterium over time, unlike many Protestant churches and their preachers with their own personal beliefs.
Alternate views of Hell, such as the "self-selected" C.S. Lewis Hell, the purgatory Hell, and annihilationism. Worth unpacking some more. Some forms of Hell belief seem to want to turn it into a type of "karma" (the Western pop-culture form of "karma", not the Hindu form that involves reincarnation and a purification over multiple lifetimes) or, worse, turn God into a cosmic Santa Claus dispensing coal and switches to bad grown-ups.
We know that many Evangelicals have gotten rich off of Trump, 30 pieces of silver at a time.
We can never become God or a god, but we can be-come-in-union with God. And that requires Jesus.
All great points. I love the expression "God's holy sandpaper." And I think the central authority of the Church is what helps it resist its "magisterium," whereas the radical individualism of Protestantism is why the faith so often goes in the other direction. I'm also, like you, fond of the phrase "Santa God," but not in reference to sin. Rather, in reference to cartoonish, anthropomorphized conceptualizations of what Tillich called the ground of Being, Buber called the eternal Thou, and RamBam called the indecipherable One. I don't bring up the Santa God to mock the faithful. I do it to mock atheists, because that's the only version they ever attack. As I like to say, it would've been nice to see Hitchens take a swing at Kierkegaard because that fight would not have ended in his favor.
Jewish here: I was taught that there is no heaven or hell but a final resting place for souls. G-d is a judging G-d. If you led a good life, your soul rests closer to G-d. If you led a bad life, your soul rests further away from G-d. I'm guessing that the degree of love and peace that your eternal soul feels differs by the distance from G-d.
The “distance from God”formulation of heaven and hell is beautiful and I subscribe to a version of this myself, although I view heaven and hell as psychological states rather than fantastical realms that exist in the clouds or beneath the earth.
Snyder criticizes Protestantism as a free market where you are "able to walk away from one tradition and find another that better aligns with your values and inclinations." Yet he seems to have chosen Eastern Orthodoxy because it better aligns with his values and inclinations, such as his discomfort with ECT, his apparent attachment to swearing, his trauma from "do's and don'ts." Of course if he really wanted to choose his church how the ancients did, he would just go to the one nearest to him.
Did you seriously illustrate your piece with a picture of the Russian Orthodox Church? Really? You think Russian Orthodoxy is fulfilling the spiritual needs of Russians? You might want to check your sources... or role models. Cyril II is as much of a faithless cheerleader for a corrupt leader as evangelicals. Heard about the LATEST scandal by former bishop Hillarion?
What do you mean "illustrate"? I included a photograph of a Russian Orthodox procession to supplement the essay. If you think Elijah or I are suggesting that Kirill, the man who once called Putin a "miracle of God," is a "fulfilling" spiritual guide, or anything of the kind, then I'm left with the impression that you didn't read past the headline. That is certainly not my claim.
If that is the case, then your illustration is killing the point Elijah is making. You could not think of any other orthodox group that would illustrate your point? Im glad he found a denomination that fulfills his spiritual needs - but honestly, you have to have a very cursory knowledge of orthodox history to think it has done better than protestantism. American Protestantism has its problems - though you seem to lump mainliners and evangelicals in one group - but so do the Orthodox.
I like most of your text very much- this one was a weak apologetic with a terrible illustration. best wishes
Hey friend - Let me say that your criticism of the Russian church is one shared by plenty of Orthodox, especially since Cyril severed communion with the church. Technically, they are in schism.
In the old country where Eastern Orthodoxy is the dominant tradition, there is plenty of corruption, etc. especially due to the patriarch's entanglements with the state, and American Orthodox converts should be honest about that.
The reason for lumping in mainline magisterial reformation churches with modern American nondenoms is because both streams have gone terribly astray for similar foundational reasons. The anglicans, the presbyterians, and the methodists seem to have been coopted by progressivism, while the more modern latte-sipping churches have been coopted by MAGA and consumerism. Neither seem particularly interested in the commands of Christ or the original Christian theology that developed over the first 1500 years and in my estimation seems more thoughtful, nuanced, and philosophically grounded.
All that said - I join you in hoping the Russians stop carrying water for Putin, and that the Orthodox hierarchy experiences it's own reforming influences.
Like I said - I am glad that you found a tradition that works for you - though the piece drips with convert's zeal.
First of all - if you capitalize Orthodox - then extend the courtesy to Presbyterians, Methodists etc. It is a question of manners and form.
Second, I'm glad that even you noticed that Orthodox theology after 1500 plateaued. Its (small) revival in the 20th century had a lot to do with its encounter with Lutheranism and Presbyterianism - and not the other way around. We protestants have our own problems - but i am not sure why anyone should fetishize the 1500s, or stick to language no one speaks (old-slavonic, greek in liturgy etc).
Finally, your text glosses over the uncomfortable fact that while claiming it is a catholic (universal) church, Orthodoxy has been marred in ethnic nationalism - and I am not talking about the 19th century even, but also recently. Care to explain why the Patriarch of Jerusalem has to be ethnically Greek though 99% of his faithful are Arabs? Oh yes, I remember, the 15th century... Remember Ukraine? And Abchasia? Or even the Polish Orthodox Church?
And again we return to the 15th century and Russia - many people claim, not without some foundation I believe, that the authoritarian turn of Russia came when Ivan III married Zoe Paleogina. She brought with her the idea that the O(orthodox) Church must serve the dynasty and state. and it has since with unsurpassed zeal that only Franklin Graham can match.
Finally, if you claim that "many Orthodox Russians" oppose the church's involvement with the state - which I honestly doubt - you might want to extend the courtesy to Protestants.
To sum up: great that you found a denomination that works for you - you thesis and even more so arguments are overtaken by zeal and are logically, historically and otherwise weak and very debatable.
But thank you for the text and discussion - I enjoyed it a lot.
I appreciate the compliment but I disagree with the notion that simply because the leaders of Orthodoxy — or Catholicism or American Protestantism — may be corrupt that therefore its practitioners, such as the men in that photo, are also corrupt. Or that all of Russian Orthodoxy is bad.
I'd also like to note that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is one of the most popular expressions of Orthodoxy in America, and the American priests and converts shaping it are not necessarily aligned with Putin or his agenda, or participating in any of the Russian corruption.
Ha! I met a few of them - brainwashed by pro-Russian propaganda and riddled with anti-Catholic anti-Europe and anti-Ukraine viterol. I am afraid this is another bad example to make your case.
As one who grew up in an evangelical church, earned an M.Div. from an evangelical seminary, left the ministry, but have not abandoned my faith, I have a somewhat different view of things than most might. What is conveniently referred to as Protestantism includes a very wide and rich variety of expressions of faith. I am uncomfortable with the manner in which they are often lumped together as if they can be adequately characterized by simply not being in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions. Luther's revolt against Rome was as much political as religious, or he would not have enjoyed the protection of powerful rulers such as Fredrick III, and would not have ignited the revolt against Rome. To ignore the others who evolved religious traditions that are in many ways reactions against practices, policies, and traditions of the Roman Catholic church, such as Calvinists and Anabaptists, is giving Luther more credit than he deserves. The Episcopalians (Anglicans) were created for political reasons by Henry VIII ostensibly for reasons less lofty than Luther's. Yet all these groups, from the Orthodox and the various forms of Catholics (Roman Catholics are not the only Catholics), to the Protestants - Liturgical, Baptistic, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and others - all share core beliefs that Lewis described as Mere Christianity. Hell, though a (non-standardized) shared belief, is not a core belief, even among all the Evangelicals.
I feel as though discussions of the impact of Protestantism, particularly critical analyses, often use an idealized alternate possible history (where Luther and Calvin never created their churches and new religious traditions) for evaluation. Would there really not have been a rise of individualism? No Enlightenment? (And therefore no basis for the American Revolution and Constitution?) Is this not magnifying issues one may not appreciate while ignoring the rest of the complex web of religious and social developments that are, at least peripherally, connected to the Reformation and the subsequent rise of Protestantism? Is this as unjust as using the Roman Church's treatment of Galileo as proof that it is anti-science while ignoring the scientific contributions of Roman Catholics such as Augustinian Friar Mendel and Jesuit scholars?
There are valid criticisms of evangelicalism, not the least of which is preaching "cheap grace", what I call "transactional salvation", the recent rise in some circles of the "gospel of prosperity", and entertainment-focused megachurches (sometimes referred to irreverently as "Six Flags Over Jesus"). In the same vein one could criticize Roman Catholics for "magical theology" which can invalidate baptisms because the word "we" was substituted for "I" in the ritual (the wrong magic words were used). A case could be made that the Orthodox and Catholic churches promote a mild form of idolatry in the devotion and prayers offered to icons, saints, and Mary. (I confess to being something of an iconoclast.) Personally I find Orthodox worship impressive and moving, but also something of a spiritual spectator sport and ultimately unsatisfying for a constant spiritual diet.
I have friends who have abandoned corporate worship, and some have rejected the faith in which they had grown up. Most of them feel betrayed by a local congregation or a denominational body. Most have a legitimate basis for feelings of betrayal. (I know that is a harsh word, but the stories I have been told justify its use.) The interesting fact is that, though most were Evangelicals (because numbers), they include former Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well. The most common thread is that they were made to feel unwelcome, or shamed for asking the wrong questions, or were the victims of malicious gossip. Yes, even the former Orthodox. I am glad you have found a home in a congregation where you feel welcomed and can explore and grow in knowledge and faith - where there are no thought police or confusion regarding the distinction between sin and some social convention peculiar to certain classes within middle America.
I feel every tradition and church within Christianity has strengths and weaknesses. Some congregations are nurturing while others are toxic, and probably most are somewhere in-between. I try to take Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants the way I take anyone else - one at a time and prayerfully, understanding that we are all in the process of becoming who we will be. Some people just require more patience than others.
Great reply here, Steven. Thank you. I learned a few things too. I agree that "Protestantism" is a very broad term. And it's a tiny thing, perhaps, but I would push back on the notion that Anglicanism was "ostensibly" created for reasons less lofty. Old Henry was a whoring sociopath who wanted to marry his mistress and that's why Anglicanism exists.
Would there not have been a rise in individualism if not for the Protestant faith? No Enlightenment? No American Revolution? Good questions. I think there very likely would have been a lot of this. But in this dimension, Protestantism did play that role. But it wasn't a monocausal event, so it's not analogous to saying the Roman Church's treatment of Galileo is proof that it's anti-science because I don't deny the impact also of the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years' War, the execution of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution, the invention of the printing press, the rise of the middle class and expansion of European trade, global exploration making contact with China, India, Islamic civilizations, and indigenous American societies, and more.
It's pretty ironic to apply the phrase "transactional salvation" to the very faith that was born as a rejection of indulgences, at least in part. And sure, we could also take shots at other faiths, but that feels to me like a bit of whataboutism because this essay and conversation were not about other faiths, but about this one. That said, I do like to write about religion and theology from time to time, so I may work my way around to it. But yes, I concede the criticism you make re "magical theology" and idolatry. We're on the same page.
"Personally I find Orthodox worship impressive and moving, but also something of a spiritual spectator sport and ultimately unsatisfying for a constant spiritual diet."
I'd love to hear what you mean by it being a spectator sport, that the clergy do most of the visible action while the choir sings most of the service? Yeah, good point, and again, agreed. But I disagree that the tenets of the faith itself make for thin spiritual gruel.
"I am glad you have found a home in a congregation where you feel welcomed."
I appreciate the kind words but I'm not an Orthodox Christian. Or a Catholic, which another friend asked me after reading this. Although in high school if you had asked me what my career plans were, I would've told you I was planning to become a Jesuit monk. But unlike the Jesuits, I'm not anti-Protestantism, at least not any more than I am anti-Catholicism or anti-Judaism, which is to say, not at all really. Although, as noted above, "Protestantism" includes a lot of stuff, and I do consider the American version of the faith, especially the transactional and prosperity stuff, a perversion.
It's not only those two issues either. The American version is vastly more individualistic and less communal. Also, the revival movements over the years have resulted in altar calls, evangelical crusades as well as greater evangelical influence overall, more overtly emotional preaching, and a much stronger populist streak, all because Americans seem to crave a powerful, if not cinematic, conversion experience. And I think that just completely misses the point and is actually rather immature, much like the American attitude to alcohol. Europeans, on the other hand, simply grow up with wine in the house and it's a normal part of their lives and they're not so toxic or weird about it. Same goes for their Protestant faith.
"I try to take Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants the way I take anyone else - one at a time and prayerfully, understanding that we are all in the process of becoming who we will be. Some people just require more patience than others."
Beautifully said, my friend.
LOL I was too charitable to King Hank the Turd.
Though I spent the better part of my life in Baptist churches, I developed some "unorthodox" views of Baptist practices and doctrine. A common method of evangelism (creating a faith crisis, sometimes through fire and brimstone sermons, which is used to force a conversion experience) combined with an over emphasis on the Security of the Believer (often sloganized as "Once Saved, Always Saved", which I believe reflects Calvinist roots) emphasizes the conversion event - in my mind to the detriment of Sanctification of the Believer (summarized as growing in the faith over time to become more Christ-like - which requires deemphasizing the Priesthood of the Believer doctrine, that Baptistic churches hold very dear). There is another path - a slower model that I see in non-evangelical conversions such as C. S. Lewis described in his own life - which I believe leads to a more stable and healthy faith. My idea of Transactional Salvation is based on my experience in the Baptist Church where respondants to an alter call are led to say "the sinner's prayer", and are told the transaction is complete. It gets presented as if it is a business contract - you express contrition / regret for your sins and offer your life to Christ, and receive eternal salvation in exchange (a grossly simplified explanation, but done to emphasize my point). I am too much a mystic to accept such business-like trivialization of key components of the Christian faith.
I am more critical of Evangelical practices simply because of my intimate knowledge and experience in those churches, but I see the weaknesses of other churches as well, having studied comparative religion and having been involved in Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Salvation Army churches at length, and attended services at Roman Catholic as well as Russian and Coptic Orthodox churches to a very limited extent (have even spent a few Friday evenings in Synagogues). What can I say; perhaps I am a bit of a spiritual voyeur. ;D I served as a Chaplain at a National Boy Scout Jamboree. Our instructions were to minister to the spiritual needs of any participant regardless of their religious status or affiliation. The Catholics thought I was Catholic, the Protestants were sure I was one of their denomination, and the Jewish people were surprised that I was not Jewish yet did all I could to make sure they could safely get to their services and back to their camps. I am not dogmatic regarding the relative correctness of any mainline Christian church or denomination. (Pun intended.)
Excellent response Steve and right in line with my thinking on this.
I was raised PCA—very Calvinist and told growing up Catholics weren’t Christians because they worshipped idols and prayed to Saints and so on. Then I met actual Catholics and got out into the world and at this point to me the Apostles Creed is the gold standard. Everything else is preference. And I’m fine with how it varies (unless it’s straight apostasy of course.)
I personally have no issue with the trajectory of individualism and think that it has brought us to a place that, while perhaps spiritually unfulfilling for some (many?), has become materially and especially intellectually fulfilling for more. While I obviously can't speak for everyone, I think it's clear that many people (myself included) have found deep fulfillment that could perhaps be described as spiritual simply from intellectual pursuits (maybe they're the same, at least for some?). Individualism and collectivism both have their benefits and drawbacks, and I think what's happening lately, largely thanks to internet-driven atomization among other things, is that fewer people can accept the trade-offs that come with individualism. I personally believe they haven't considered the trade-offs from collectivism, especially since they have never lived them, and I think they're more motivated by an avoidance or fear of trade-offs in general, but that's neither here nor there. Individualism's trade-offs are being questioned, and that's the reality with which we must cope.
That all being said, Elijah's absolutely speaking my language with regard to the historical trajectory of the individualistic ethos and what has happened in the United States in particular, which is derived from the Enlightenment values that only exist thanks to the individualism and questioning of authority AS a value, encouraged by the Reformation. Where I might part company with him, or at least have a different interpretation, is that I think the Protestant faith hasn't gone anywhere, and has instead taken on an increasingly secular aesthetic. It feels passe to talk about social justice/antiracism/"wokeness" being a religion now, but if I'm right to characterize the late 2010s-2020 or 2021 as the most recent explosion of revivalism--a new Great Awakening--then I think what we're seeing now with those not retreating into the toxic socialist-nihilist-Third Worldist mush of left wing populism, is the same kind of settling that always followed American revivalist explosions. The specific concerns of those revivals has always changed, but the character never did except with the seemingly secular aesthetic (which honestly isn't all that new; the revivals of the late 19th century were very secular in many ways).
But again, Elijah's point is sound; the individualism at the core of Protestantism is what brought us to where we are; politically, socially, spiritually. Perhaps the best way to put it is that we would do well to recognize this heritage, even us atheists.
I don't think we need to return to a collectivist way of thinking, so much as balance the plane to meet the full range of human needs. God willing, America will always be individualistic, but maybe we could learn to unify around the shared beliefs that matter most. And the creed, hymns, etc are not a bad place to start - even an atheist might find enough common ground in Christian ethics to feel kinship around the big picture. Great comment. There are certainly trade-offs in both directions that must be weighed.
Well said, and thanks for clarifying! Like I said you really spoke my language with your insights into American Christianity (Protestantism in particular). I’m actually wrapping up my masters thesis that charts the potential connection between the Salem witchcraft crisis and First Great Awakening via the sociopolitical mechanism of questioning institutional authority (short version: Salem definitely hurt institutional authority and that was not forgotten by several people even 50 years later during the revivals). My suspicion is that this was the beginning of a pseudo-cyclical trend (pseudo in the sense that it can’t be predicted, but it certainly reoccurs), and that fits into your thesis, at least regarding the American expression of Protestantism.
If one really wanted to dig in and open up an intellectual thought project (or can of worms?), open up the Pauline vs Anti-Pauline debate.
Excellent topic, Jabster. Where do you stand? I tend to be anti-Paul in that I prefer what was before and find it philosophically richer. I'm not persuaded by the greater emphasis on simple faith over righteous living, on the crucifixion not as a catastrophe to be explained but as the entire mechanism of redemption, or on Jesus as cosmic Lord rather than a Jewish prophet. I like some Jewish Christian traditions that reject Paul but keep the Gospels, largely because I find Johannine theology to be some of the most sophisticated stuff in the Greek Bible.
Oh gosh...so much great stuff to unpack here. I'm going to post a few comments, and read it again and I will be back.
YES that repentance is a lifelong process, not a singular or infrequent event as suggested by Evangelicals and their altar calls. You have to pick up your cross every day. I like to call it "God's holy sandpaper", smoothing out the rough edges. And we may pick up some damage along the way requiring some additional buffing out.
Concerned about the need for works vs sola scriptura. At what point is the amount of works "enough"? Of course, sola scriptura can lead to cheap grace and spurious salvation of insincere, evil people. But there are no sins too big for Jesus to cleanse. But still not sure where to draw the line on how much "clean living" is holy enough, or if it's all Isaiah's "filthy rags" and we should just do the good works we're called for as best we can.
I've always had a problem with the Roman Catholic magisterium and Holy Tradition, in part because it tries to do too much sometimes and is quite arbitrary at other times. However, it is folly to deny that every Protestant faith has some kind of phantom magisterium and Holy Tradition. A good example is the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture in Evangelical churches, and all that springs from that like young-Earth creationism. There are others. To the Roman Catholic Church's credit, it has "pressure tested" its magisterium over time, unlike many Protestant churches and their preachers with their own personal beliefs.
Alternate views of Hell, such as the "self-selected" C.S. Lewis Hell, the purgatory Hell, and annihilationism. Worth unpacking some more. Some forms of Hell belief seem to want to turn it into a type of "karma" (the Western pop-culture form of "karma", not the Hindu form that involves reincarnation and a purification over multiple lifetimes) or, worse, turn God into a cosmic Santa Claus dispensing coal and switches to bad grown-ups.
We know that many Evangelicals have gotten rich off of Trump, 30 pieces of silver at a time.
We can never become God or a god, but we can be-come-in-union with God. And that requires Jesus.
Theosis was the most important fence post removed by the reformers.
All great points. I love the expression "God's holy sandpaper." And I think the central authority of the Church is what helps it resist its "magisterium," whereas the radical individualism of Protestantism is why the faith so often goes in the other direction. I'm also, like you, fond of the phrase "Santa God," but not in reference to sin. Rather, in reference to cartoonish, anthropomorphized conceptualizations of what Tillich called the ground of Being, Buber called the eternal Thou, and RamBam called the indecipherable One. I don't bring up the Santa God to mock the faithful. I do it to mock atheists, because that's the only version they ever attack. As I like to say, it would've been nice to see Hitchens take a swing at Kierkegaard because that fight would not have ended in his favor.
American Protestism is a perversion ... Pick your poison. After all, you're bringing it with you when you join, whichever one you join.
Jewish here: I was taught that there is no heaven or hell but a final resting place for souls. G-d is a judging G-d. If you led a good life, your soul rests closer to G-d. If you led a bad life, your soul rests further away from G-d. I'm guessing that the degree of love and peace that your eternal soul feels differs by the distance from G-d.
The “distance from God”formulation of heaven and hell is beautiful and I subscribe to a version of this myself, although I view heaven and hell as psychological states rather than fantastical realms that exist in the clouds or beneath the earth.
Snyder criticizes Protestantism as a free market where you are "able to walk away from one tradition and find another that better aligns with your values and inclinations." Yet he seems to have chosen Eastern Orthodoxy because it better aligns with his values and inclinations, such as his discomfort with ECT, his apparent attachment to swearing, his trauma from "do's and don'ts." Of course if he really wanted to choose his church how the ancients did, he would just go to the one nearest to him.
Did you seriously illustrate your piece with a picture of the Russian Orthodox Church? Really? You think Russian Orthodoxy is fulfilling the spiritual needs of Russians? You might want to check your sources... or role models. Cyril II is as much of a faithless cheerleader for a corrupt leader as evangelicals. Heard about the LATEST scandal by former bishop Hillarion?
What do you mean "illustrate"? I included a photograph of a Russian Orthodox procession to supplement the essay. If you think Elijah or I are suggesting that Kirill, the man who once called Putin a "miracle of God," is a "fulfilling" spiritual guide, or anything of the kind, then I'm left with the impression that you didn't read past the headline. That is certainly not my claim.
If that is the case, then your illustration is killing the point Elijah is making. You could not think of any other orthodox group that would illustrate your point? Im glad he found a denomination that fulfills his spiritual needs - but honestly, you have to have a very cursory knowledge of orthodox history to think it has done better than protestantism. American Protestantism has its problems - though you seem to lump mainliners and evangelicals in one group - but so do the Orthodox.
I like most of your text very much- this one was a weak apologetic with a terrible illustration. best wishes
Hey friend - Let me say that your criticism of the Russian church is one shared by plenty of Orthodox, especially since Cyril severed communion with the church. Technically, they are in schism.
In the old country where Eastern Orthodoxy is the dominant tradition, there is plenty of corruption, etc. especially due to the patriarch's entanglements with the state, and American Orthodox converts should be honest about that.
The reason for lumping in mainline magisterial reformation churches with modern American nondenoms is because both streams have gone terribly astray for similar foundational reasons. The anglicans, the presbyterians, and the methodists seem to have been coopted by progressivism, while the more modern latte-sipping churches have been coopted by MAGA and consumerism. Neither seem particularly interested in the commands of Christ or the original Christian theology that developed over the first 1500 years and in my estimation seems more thoughtful, nuanced, and philosophically grounded.
All that said - I join you in hoping the Russians stop carrying water for Putin, and that the Orthodox hierarchy experiences it's own reforming influences.
Like I said - I am glad that you found a tradition that works for you - though the piece drips with convert's zeal.
First of all - if you capitalize Orthodox - then extend the courtesy to Presbyterians, Methodists etc. It is a question of manners and form.
Second, I'm glad that even you noticed that Orthodox theology after 1500 plateaued. Its (small) revival in the 20th century had a lot to do with its encounter with Lutheranism and Presbyterianism - and not the other way around. We protestants have our own problems - but i am not sure why anyone should fetishize the 1500s, or stick to language no one speaks (old-slavonic, greek in liturgy etc).
Finally, your text glosses over the uncomfortable fact that while claiming it is a catholic (universal) church, Orthodoxy has been marred in ethnic nationalism - and I am not talking about the 19th century even, but also recently. Care to explain why the Patriarch of Jerusalem has to be ethnically Greek though 99% of his faithful are Arabs? Oh yes, I remember, the 15th century... Remember Ukraine? And Abchasia? Or even the Polish Orthodox Church?
And again we return to the 15th century and Russia - many people claim, not without some foundation I believe, that the authoritarian turn of Russia came when Ivan III married Zoe Paleogina. She brought with her the idea that the O(orthodox) Church must serve the dynasty and state. and it has since with unsurpassed zeal that only Franklin Graham can match.
Finally, if you claim that "many Orthodox Russians" oppose the church's involvement with the state - which I honestly doubt - you might want to extend the courtesy to Protestants.
To sum up: great that you found a denomination that works for you - you thesis and even more so arguments are overtaken by zeal and are logically, historically and otherwise weak and very debatable.
But thank you for the text and discussion - I enjoyed it a lot.
I appreciate the compliment but I disagree with the notion that simply because the leaders of Orthodoxy — or Catholicism or American Protestantism — may be corrupt that therefore its practitioners, such as the men in that photo, are also corrupt. Or that all of Russian Orthodoxy is bad.
I'd also like to note that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is one of the most popular expressions of Orthodoxy in America, and the American priests and converts shaping it are not necessarily aligned with Putin or his agenda, or participating in any of the Russian corruption.
Ha! I met a few of them - brainwashed by pro-Russian propaganda and riddled with anti-Catholic anti-Europe and anti-Ukraine viterol. I am afraid this is another bad example to make your case.
But you said yourself you only met a few of them.