Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Crumbaugh's avatar

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.

jabster's avatar

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.

11 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?