Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 2

Zack — February 2, 2012 — 27 Comments

The following is the second installment in a series of posts on why I believe the church must abandon evangelicalism. You can find part 1 here.

I love the Bible.

I always have.

I’ve read plenty of other books, but nothing that compares to the immensity, complexity, sheer audacity, and convicting power of the books that comprise the Old and New Testaments.

All Christians hold the Bible in esteem, of course, but none has placed it on a higher pedestal than those who call themselves “evangelical.” As many evangelicals would probably tell you, they are “a people of the Book”. So, I think it is fitting that I begin my critique of evangelicalism in the place where the faith of most evangelicals begins, the Bible.

I say most, because, once again, evangelicals come in all shapes and sizes and not all hold the Bible in as high esteem as others. So, when I talk about the evangelical approach to the Bible I’m talking about the “most”, not the minority.

In my experience, evangelicalism places the Bible on a pedestal far higher than it was ever intended. Of course, if you say that to a tried and true evangelical they will most likely look at you dumbstruck and remind you that the Bible is the Word of God.

Some of us would want to reply that the “w” in “Word” should be lowercase, and I think that is a very good distinction to make, but I’m not convinced that that distinction ultimately makes much difference to most evangelicals.

So, why does it matter if the Bible is placed on such a high pedestal?

When the Bible becomes the Word of God, then try as we might to prevent it from happening, it eventually takes the place of God. This is called biblical idolatry, or bibliolatry, and whether we realize it or not, it runs rampant in nearly every evangelical church. Bibliolatry happens when we forget or are too afraid to admit that, though certainly inspired or “God-breathed”, every single book, letter, and Psalm in the Bible was written by human beings.

This makes some people profoundly uncomfortable. If the Bible wasn’t passed down from heaven directly by God, then they reason it must be corrupt and untrustworthy. So, these people retrench into fundamentalism and inerrancy, convinced there are only 2 options for the Bible: divine perfection or human invention. They would tell you that if the Bible contains any error or contradiction, then the whole thing must be considered worthless and thrown out. In other words, if Jonah wasn’t literally holed up in a whale (actually a “big fish”), then somehow that must negate the resurrection of Jesus.

Talk to any police detective or historian and they’ll tell you how absolutely foolish this line of “reasoning” is. When detectives collect testimony from witnesses at a crime scene, or historians read various accounts of the same historical event, the discrepancies in the witness testimonies don’t necessarily negate the reality of the event. There’s still a murder victim. There was still a Civil War. If anything, those divergent testimonies and contradictions speak to the complexity and depth that reality actually possesses.

Likewise, when the Bible is nothing more than divine edict it creates a breeding ground for anti-intellectualism. God is never wrong. When the Bible becomes the literary incarnation of God is must therefore also be perfect. Any truth claim made by science or archaeology must conform to the divine page or else it is deemed untrue. Any Christians who attempt to incorporate scientific discoveries into their faith are branded heretics, deceivers, and wolves out to devour the sheep. This ignorant retrenchment only serves to make the church look foolish, and not the type of wisdom of God that is foolishness to men. It’s just foolishness.

Worst yet, when the Bible is considered a divine edict, free from the influence of man, it ceases to be the story of God’s relationship with His people and is transformed into a kind of legal document. It’s words can be picked apart at our convenience, ripped out of their context, and used to support any theological claim. Worse yet, those supporting efforts almost always result in cases of spiritual abuse. Look no further than the proof-texts used to oppress women and homosexuals, justify the absolute control of a local pastor, or damn anyone deemed a heretic. When this happens the Bible ceases to be a narrative that invites the reader to participate in the ongoing telling of the faith story and instead becomes nothing more than a weapon used to manipulate, oppress, and control others.

Ultimately, what makes the rejection of human contribution to the Bible most problematic is that it likewise rejects God’s desire and efforts to let humanity participate in the redemption of creation. It should tell us something that God could have chosen to literally drop the Bible from heaven, but instead chose to work through flawed human beings.

When the Bible is from God rather than being God, it is a gift rather than an edict. Seen this way it is the effort by a Creator not to simply dictate a divine will, but to dialogue with His creation. God had enough faith that the truth of the Gospel could shine through our imperfections and misunderstandings. We should have that same sort of faith. God wants our input.

Finally, I think one the biggest flaws in evangelicalism’s understanding of the Bible is its underlying assumption that the story of God and His people ended with the 22nd chapter of Revelation. The canon may have been closed, but the story of God’s people continues. Because the Bible is a story inspired by the Spirit, but written by people, and that Spirit continues to inspire people today, the story of God is not over….and that may be the biggest reason of all to reject the bibliolotry of evangelicalism.

Bibliolatry turns the Bible into a stagnant, outdated, and ultimately irrelevant relic of bygone era. The Bible as part of a larger narrative of God’s interaction with His people makes it a dynamic and perpetually relevant source of knowledge, hope, and abundant life.

So how should the Bible function in the life of the faithful?

I think that we should begin by remembering that the Bible has no meaning apart from the community of faith to which is belongs. We can’t use it to lord over those outside that community who haven’t entered into the covenant which produced that great collection of books. Neither should we beat those within the community over the head with the Bible either. The Bible exists to edify the people of God, not tear them down.

We must also find the courage to acknowledge that the purpose of the Bible is not to reveal all scientific and historical knowledge. Though these things may be sometimes found within its pages, ultimately the Bible is an invitation to participate in the life of God, to participate in the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. As such it is certainly both guide and limit setter for how that work should be done, but this guidance and limit setting doesn’t come from a “plain reading of the text” because no such thing exists.

We all come to the Bible within a personal context, with personal biases, preconceived ideas, and predetermined conclusions. We must continually wrestle with the text, knowing that though its truths may be eternal, the context in which those truths are spoken is constantly changing. Therefore, we must not deceive ourselves into believing that we have exhausted all possible interpretations and applications of the Bible.

Rather, we must remember that we are not the only ones who have ever read the Bible. Other people much different than ourselves have read the Bible for centuries and often came to conclusions about it that are very different than our own. Because of this, we must not be afraid to use the tools of tradition, experience, and reason to interpret the Bible. All of us do this to one extent or another anyway, but admitting and embracing it is the only hope we have for ending the tyranny of bibliolatry.

Finally, we must come to understand what it really means to honor and respect the Bible.

It is a good and right thing to show honor and respect to the Bible, but not to the point that it becomes an object of worship, unable to be critiqued or questioned. At my ordination service, the presiding pastor said, “We are not afraid to ask questions of the Bible, because we know that as soon as we do it will turn around and do the same to us.” We should heed these words. We will honor the Bible in so much as we take the time to actually read it, ask questions of it, and seek understanding of it through dialogue with each other. We will respect the Bible when we continuing to participate in the story of faith by being faithful, loving disciples of Jesus and inviting others to come and do the same.

I believe that this is the way forward for the Church and her most sacred collection of writings.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Coming tomorrow…..Converts

In Uncategorized

Zack

Posts

http://www.lifebeforethebucket.com Adrian W.

I was nodding my head the entire way. I’m thinking goes along well with the idea that Rachel Held Evans proposed: taking the Bible for what it actually IS and not what we want it to be.
http://the-armadillo.com Andy Unnerstall

It always amazes me how often we Christians can refuse to change the angle of our perceptions even the slightest degree. It’s like we’re terrified of a lightning bolt from heaven if we question at all the way things are done. Thanks for putting yourself out there, and I hope this opens a whole new dialogue for the church.
Joel

“I think that we should begin by remembering that the Bible has no meaning apart from the community of faith to which is belongs.”

Could you elaborate?
- Zack
  
  Sure…What I mean is the Bible is the product of the covenant made between a particular people and their God. Certainly those outside that covenant could find some resonance to things within the Bible. But, the full meaning of scripture can only be understood within the context of that covenant community. We see this play out in Acts when Phillip meets the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch is reading from the book of Isaiah, but not being a member of the people to whom, by whom, and for whom, the text was written, he, by his own account, doesn’t really understand what he is reading. So, it is up to Phillip a member of that community too make sense of it for him. Long story short, the Bible only fully makes sense within the community by whom and to whom it was written.
  - composerchris
    
    I think of Romans 8:7-8, where Paul writes “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
    
    What strikes me the most is “indeed, it cannot.” We cannot hold unbelievers to the standards that we ourselves are held to, because they simply do not understand. I struggle with this, because it makes me wonder how to best tell the story of Jesus and the need for redemption, since people just can’t understand that they need to be redeemed!
composerchris

Hmmm….some things I definitely agree with, but I don’t like how easily the word “bibliolatry” is used. Agreeing with an absolute that Scripture teaches is not “bibliolatry,” and I find that it’s usually progressives/liberals/emergents that are the ones to throw the word out so quickly. What do these 3 groups have in common? A perception that Scripture is a guidebook with a list of suggestions, any of which can be dismissed when our culture says things to the contrary. Have people twisted Scripture to meet their own agendas? Of course, and always will. But to call this mis-reading or mis-use of Scripture “bibliolatry” seems to be an unnecessary incendiary word to belittle those who are not of a liberal/progressive/emergent bent.
jokerman

Thank you for this. The issue of Biblical authority is one that I have encountered a few times in my short time as a pastor. While I would not identify my particular branch of Christianity as evangelical, those who are in the pew often speak and act as though it is (I believe we are in the same denom.). I am on board with the idea that scriptural authority is connected with the community; in this case, it is the church. That is to say, historically, it was quite possible that a different set of books could have been chosen as canon. Instead, we believe that, through the Holy Spirit, the church chose these 66 books as the best and most direct revelation of God’s work in creation and specifically through the Hebrew people. They don’t need to be “perfect” in the modernist, scientific, enlightened sense of the word. Instead, they are the narrative that reveals God’s saving work, a work that, as you have indicated, stretched through the apostolic fathers, Nicaea, Ignatius, Anselm, the Reformation and counter-reformation, Wesley, and down to our continued participation today.

And I would have to agree with your assessment of bibliolatry. I have heard the scriptures equated with the Word incarnate, as in, “Jesus is the Word of God, and the Bible is the Word of God, so any attack (re: understanding different than mine) on the Bible is an attack on Jesus himself.” Wow. And in these cases, the person I’ve encountered is more concerned with being “right” than being Jesus, because they have set themselves up for a fight to the death over every obscure passage.

Anyway, thanks again.
http://figuralfaith.tumblr.com M.J. DePue

I don’t think your point about “bibliolotry” should be missed.

Growing up in an evangelical church and the accompanying culture, it has become clear to me that the bible is often thought of as the mediator between God and humanity (as the Qur’an is in Islam). This quietly replaces Jesus as the incarnate God.

John’s Gospel calls Jesus, not the bible, the Word of God.

Even more troubling is the tendency within evangelicalism to ignore history. Take a look at the writings of St. Augustine or Martin Luther and the kind of attitudes towards the bible that dominate the evangelical world didn’t exist.

The people of the church I grew up in were fond of saying that certain groups (Catholics and mainline Protestants) were not really Christians because they did not have something called a “personal relationship” with God. The irony is that that kind of thinking is a relatively new phenomenon, and would end up discounting two thousand years of Christianity as “not true Christianity.”
- composerchris
  
  The Psalms and Paul also refer to the Scriptures as “the Word.” You can’t ignore that. But I completely agree that the evangelical hijacking of who is and isn’t a Christian needs some re-thinking.
  - Zack
    
    I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. When the Psalms were written there was no such thing as the Old Testament, let alone the Bible. For the Psalmist, the “word” of God is God’s literal spoken word. Likewise, when Paul talks about scripture the Bible didn’t exist. He could only have been referring to the Old Testament and certainly would have not been dreamed of calling his own words holy scripture. Additionally, you’ll have to show me where Paul uses the phrase “word of God” to refer to scripture because I can’t recall him ever using that phrase.
    - Matt
      
      Peter in 2 Pt 3:16 uses the same greek word for scripture as is used for the Old Testament. Also saying Paul wouldn’t have dreamed of his writing being declared scripture is not accurate. Paul took the authority given to him by God to make commands on the churches. As an Apostle he had the right to declare God’s word to man.
      - composerchris
        
        Agreed, Matt. And I guess I was thinking of Hebrews 4, which we don’t know who the author is. I also think of 2 Peter 1, where he says “And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” Combined with what Peter writes in chapter 3 verse 16, it is pretty clear that Peter is holding Paul’s writings to the same level and authority of the rest of Scripture.
Justin

slow clap >>>>>>>>> standing o
http://trippingstumblingwhilefollowingjesus.blogspot.com/ Joe

Thank you very much. Your post was absolutely fantastic! (I don’t think I need to even say anymore.) Just spot on.
Pingback: Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 3 | The American Jesus
Greg D

In regards to biblicism this is how I see it:

Yes, the Bible is indeed infallible, inspired, and God-breathed. However, man’s hermeneutics are flawed and fallible. Therefore, there is no way man can correctly interpret the whole of Scripture in it’s form and context as God originally intended. I also find that most people who hold to the perfection of Scripture also hold to the belief that their interpretation of Scripture is generally assumed to be the correct one. This usually results in pissing matches between differing theological views ending in petty arguments and causing much division within the Body of Christ.

Let us believe Scripture is perfect, acknowledging man’s interpretation isn’t. And, together, with the help of the Holy Spirit, try and figure this thing out united in love, humility, and grace.
- composerchris
  
  Well said, Greg.
Karen

“Therefore, there is no way man can correctly interpret the whole of Scripture in it’s form and context as God originally intended.”

If you are saying that, unaided by the Holy Spirit, individual believers (or groups of believers) cannot infallibly interpret Scripture, I agree. If you are saying there is no infallible framework (recognizable tradition of interpretation within the historic Christian community/Church) within which Scripture can be reliably and accurately interpreted and applied (even if some details are lost to antiquity), this is not the classic Christian understanding following Jesus’ promise to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth. As Zack mentions, Scripture (Old and New Testament) was given within a particular context–the community from which it came–and can only be reliably and fully understood (in terms of the big picture, if not every detail) only within that context. I suggest you take a look at the teachings of St. Irenaeus (a very early member of that community and renowned for his defense of orthodox interpretations of Scripture against heresies) and see what he used as the guide to understand how to recognize that correct Apostolic framework of interpretation. Also, look up that famous dictum of St.Vincent of Lerins.

This article may be of interest: http://www.orthodoxcentral.com/articles/churchtradition.htm
- composerchris
  
  Agreed, Karen. I have always appreciated the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture; and that includes having a proper grasp of the audience and literary style of which it was originally intended and given to. When I was younger, I would get freaked out when I would hear believers pointing out how Revelation was being fulfilled by events in the middle east! Of course, these were people that have just the “plain reading” of Scripture. But like you pointed out, we can’t really do that now like they could 2000 years ago.
  - Karen
    
    Actually, composerchris, by acknowledging the need for some historical context, understanding of literary style, etc., you are pointing to the fact that Scripture does *not* interpret itself. This has never been the classic Christian understanding of how to interpret Scripture–rather, it is a very late belief unique to modern Evangelicalism. As Zack is pointing out, one has to be within the community from which the Scripture came, experiencing its life, and understand its tradition of interpretation (illumined by the work of the Holy Spirit through its councils, etc.) in order to correctly interpret Scripture. Many of the common understandings of Scripture, i.e., Christology–that Jesus is fully God and fully human, that the Holy Spirit is God, that God is Triune, etc., (as well as the common Creeds of the Church) came out of such a process and are borrowed by Evangelicals from the more historic churches (going far back enough, this is the same as the Orthodox Church, which is arguably the most ancient and least changed of all the groups in Christendom that trace their roots to Nicene-Constantinoplian orthodoxy).
    - composerchris
      
      What I mean is that you have to be careful on reading Scripture “at face value,” or the “plain reading,” because the Bible was not written for 21st Century Americans. It is FOR us, as it is for all believers, but not written TO us. So I am saying that it is important to know for whom and how a book was written, and have some grasp of the intention at the time of its writing in order to get the most accurate intention of the writing. Does that make sense? I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you, but please tell me if you think I’m still not getting what you’re saying.
      - Karen
        
        All of those things are true, composerchris, and helpful. But classically in Orthodox Christian understanding, further than that one has to also participate in the life of Christ (within the Church), also experiencing what those early communities experienced, in order to have the proper interpretive context in which to understand Scripture. In other words, one also needs the experience of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit in common with the corporate community (across the centuries and across cultures)–merely having access to historical data is not sufficient.
        
        That said, I still run across believers who think that one can discover the full meaning of the Scriptures simply by cross examining Scripture with Scripture using the “plain sense” (to them) of the words of Scripture and their own human powers of rational analysis and “common sense” understanding. They have no appreciation for the fact that the main reason they understand certain Scriptures the way Christians have always understood them is because they have been trained to see them that way by Christian pastors and teachers who have assumed and accepted and passed on a great deal of the Church’s historic interpretive tradition. One popular Bible study group “Bible Study Fellowship” approaches Scripture this way. Members must study the Scriptures according to the “inductive method,” i.e., coming to the historical texts naked without helps and just using the passages themselves (and the questions in the study materials) as their guide to interpretation and the meaning of the text. They are not allowed recourse to hearing what the great Christian teachers of the past have said about those Scriptures (although it is likely that many have already been exposed to a lot of this historic interpretive tradition elsewhere and that they bring this unconsciously to the naked text when they study). A rejection and questioning of the interpretive tradition of the Church that has been passed down through the centuries from our forebears in the faith is what leads to different groups of Christians claiming their doctrine comes from the Bible alone and yet disagreeing with each other about things as central to NT Christian identity as the meaning and nature of baptism and of the Eucharist!
Pingback: Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 4 | The American Jesus
Pingback: Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 6 | The American Jesus
TC

I want to first say that I mean no disrespect. However, I am deeply troubled by your post. Not, as you may expect, because I am somehow disillusioned and as such am worried by the foundations of my faith being shaken; but rather by the astonishing lack of accuracy in this essay. I would rather not be so crass as to take you point by point, however, I do have a few crucial issues I feel ought to be pointed out. Firstly, I, being predominantly Evangelical (though that is not to say I am unintelligent, uneducated, or that I worship the Bible as a stand-alone relic) can tell you having spent my entire life within the E-Free denomination, have never in my years come into contact with someone who believes the Bible to be an object of worship; so let’s stop accusing all Evangelicals of having some cultish ido-scriptora.
Secondly, you make a fatal error in your supposition: “Some of us would want to reply that the “w” in “Word” should be lowercase, and I think that is a very good distinction to make, but I’m not convinced that that distinction ultimately makes much difference to most evangelicals.”
TC

I want to first say that I mean no disrespect. However, I am deeply troubled by your post. Not, as you may expect, because I am somehow disillusioned and as such am worried by the foundations of my faith being shaken; but rather by the astonishing lack of accuracy in this essay. I would rather not be so crass as to take you point by point, however, I do have a few crucial issues I feel ought to be pointed out. Firstly, I, being predominantly Evangelical (though that is not to say I am unintelligent, uneducated, or that I worship the Bible as a stand-alone relic) can tell you having spent my entire life within the E-Free denomination, have never in my years come into contact with someone who believes the Bible to be an object of worship; so let’s stop accusing all Evangelicals of having some cultish ido-scriptora.
Secondly, you make a fatal error in your supposition: “Some of us would want to reply that the “w” in “Word” should be lowercase, and I think that is a very good distinction to make, but I’m not convinced that that distinction ultimately makes much difference to most evangelicals.” In Matthew 4:4 it says “But he answered, “It is written,“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” ” The Greek used here for “word” is ‘Rhema’ which is to refer to spoken words (http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/strongs.asp?Strongs=G4487/) where as John 1:1 states “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Note, it is capitalized, direct copy and paste from the ESV on Biblegateway.com) Here the Greek for “word” is Logos which has been defined by Strongs as meaning both “the sayings of God” and “the person of Jesus Christ” (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/logos.html)

You build your entire argument on “Bibliolatry” yet, it argues against itself. according to a direct look at the original Greek (before you attack original, please at least don’t attempt to discredit the writer’s intentions or values. They were many of them Hebrews, and they by cultural conditioning were meticulous scribes. Before you attempt to refute that please consider the overwhelming secular support of that claim). Your argument fails to incorporate that there is an apparent connection between Christ and the Scriptures. Which is not unusual since he appears so very often in the New Testament as well as being foreshadowed relentlessly in the Old. That being said, it is important when dealing with matters of inerrancy to take in the full measure of the text, and not merely base it on the English translations of the text. Bear in mind that the writers had to take Aramaic and translate that into Greek, and Greek was then Translated into Latin, and Latin eventually (after a few other translations) into English. That said, while this should not be misconstrued as to enhance the likelihood of error, it would make transliteral conversion of idioms and linguistic nature much more difficult.

Finally (as I said not to take you on point by point, at least not via forum), the third, and of the most namely flaws in your reasoning is the supposition of irrationality when we say that none of it is valid if even one error is found.
the Evangelicals you apparently have run into seem unable to properly articulate so allow me the chance to have a go. In a sort of basic philosophical format
1: If any part of the Connotic Scriptures (P) are not inherently true, then it calls into question which parts are true and which parts are not?
2: If every claim in P is called into question, then what P says about Jesus, God, Heaven, Hell, Salvation, and really any other doctrinal idea must be questioned.
3: if P cannot be trusted and each claim must be questioned and evaluated in order to ascertain truth, then Truth (T) is defined by man and not God, it is Man who discerns the truth and the myth.
4: If Man is responsible to discern every T in P, then Man can simply select and reject each doctrine as he deems fit.
5: if Man can pick and choose which doctrine is T, then Man can essentially invent his own God.
6: if Man can invent his own god, then the god worshiped and the creator God are not necessarily the same.
Conclusion: If any part of the scripture is not inerrantly true, then any and every part is up for selection or rejection. Thereby necessitating that God is not the one who defines truth.

Secondary ramification: If any part is true, while any other is false, how do we know that God is good? perhaps he is not.. perhaps it is Satan that is Good and we have been lied to.
If at any point, any of the things God says he said, are found false.. then God is not trustworthy (He lied) If He lied, then He sinned, If He sinned, he is not righteous and Just, if he is neither righteous nor just, he is not perfectly good, if he is not perfectly good, he cannot love perfectly, if he cannot love perfectly and he is unjust (even slightly) then his wrath cannot be trusted to be righteous, and nether can he be trusted that his forgiveness is valid, relevant, or even truly forgiving. Slowly the fabric of God unwinds and you find yourself with no god because all of his attributes fall apart, and nothing can exist without attributes. When we say that all of it must be void its because we believe God is bigger and more complex than we are, and as such cannot be fully understood (to a small point yes, in so far as he reveals himself to us). Otherwise, it puts the burden of moral essence on us, not God, and if we are sinful, what does that say about our sin? we can write it off… we essentially take the place of God.

Again, I want to emphasize, I am not posting here because I am looking for a fight.. that in fact is the last thing I want. However, I believe that it is impossible to be regenerated and still entertain such gnostic attitudes. I cannot emphasize enough how much I hope that this can generate some beneficial dialogue; I hope nothing I said is misinterpreted as “mud-slinging” I have no interest in that, you are my brothers and sisters if you have been forgiven by the blood of the lamb, and I want nothing more than to fight side by side with you. Please, respond, let us discuss this, it is a fascinating dilemma.
God bless,
In the Name of Christ,
T.C.

P.S. (Please if any of you wish to comment, and be destructive (something I hope I’m wasting my time mentioning) please refrain, I came here because I am interested in the pursuit of truth, and more so in the passionate pursuit of Jesus Christ, any unnecessary slams will not do anything of value)

P.P.S. Zack, sir, If you would like a point by point, I would very much like to have your responses to my counter-arguments, send me an email (assuming you have access to that), and I would be glad to debate this with you.
Jon

Excellent blog! I came across this as part of my search into my own understanding of my faith and it is nice to read what so many have been thinking. I have been a major victim of a “church” and there wrong and cultish interpretation of scripture. We have over 30,000 Protestant denominations today because everyone interprets their own scripture. Apparently the Holy Spirit guided each individual to their own conclusions. Really? I think not. I am on my journey back home to Rome and I encourage you to look into it. The Catholic church holds the Bible to the standard you speak of and holds sacred Tradition (capital T intended) to an equal standard because theology is developed over time. The one holy and apostolic church was the Catholic church for the first 1500 years of Christianity, and yet most Protestants believe the Bible was just discovered by Martin Luther or something. The history of the church means something and if most evabgelicals truly looked back at the history they would find Catholicism. St Augustine, St Aquinas, just to name two great early theologians often referenced by protestants Even the great hero CS Lewis was Anglican which I would argue is closer to Catholicism than american evangelicalism. Also Christ says “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” Christ passes his authority to Peter who helped lay out the early church as essentially the first Pope. In fact much of the liturgy of the catholic church is reflective of historic Jewish practices. I hope my post comes across as showing my excitement for my new discoveries and not as a rant!

I would encourage you to check out Wordonfire.org Father Barron is a great theologian and has put out hundreds of short YouTube videos regarding Christianity and culture.

I am currently reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and although long it is so great to see the depth of study that has gone into outlying every aspect of the faith.

Scott Hahn also has a great book called Rome Sweet Home.

Grace and Peace to you on your journey

Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 2

Zack

SUBSCRIBE

Search

Blogroll

Archives