Interactions with Evangelicals?

[Simca]

Hi everyone…

I wonder if any Catholics here have had any significant interactions with evangelical christians?

If so, what do they think of us? It seems in recent years, that many do in fact consider us “christians” and are willing to overlook our differences. Many believe we are saved… as if they knew…

I could be wrong, but the whole notion of Catholics as “Idol worshipin’, pagan idolaters” seems to be one from the past ( albeit still exiting among groups such as Westboro baptist Church"

I live in Minnesota. The only biggest faith group here are the Lutherans, a pretty tame and tolerant bunch, despite their doctrinal errors

Any thouhgts?

I really hope you are right about this. When I was in an adult Sunday school class at a Baptist church, everyone agreed that Catholics could not be saved. This was many years ago.

:banghead:

 

[JRRTFAN]

I really hope you are right about this. When I was in an adult Sunday school class at a Baptist church, everyone agreed that Catholics could not be saved. This was many years ago.

:banghead:

I’m late to the dance here, but I’m married to an Evangelical (former Catholic) and all her friends (and our children’s friends) are Evangelical. My son is an elder in an Evangelical mega-church of national repute.

The general concept they espouse is that Catholics can be saved but only in spite of being Catholic, not because of being Catholic. They profoundly disdain the efficacy of any sacrament even though they tell you they have 2, Baptism and Lord’s Supper, they call these sacraments but have no sacramental theology. In fact they do have 2, Baptism and Matrimony but they repudiate that these confer the grace they signify.

They invite me to stuff because I’m a nice old guy. I went to a baby dedication today and the family had a big lunch afterward. The pastor came up and introduced himself, said he’s heard all about me. I said: “Well every bit of what you heard is true.” then we talked about the weather.

I have studied and pondered Evangelicalism for almost 20 years and I can find no logic or Scriptural basis in it. It simply lacks congruence at every turn. But, it makes people happy as a clam and all the ones I have met are salt of the earth. So to each his own but I do find it appalling that they deny sanctifying grace to their little children because of some goofy misinterpretation of Scripture.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m late to the dance here, but I’m married to an Evangelical (former Catholic) and all her friends (and our children’s friends) are Evangelical. My son is an elder in an Evangelical mega-church of national repute.

The general concept they espouse is that Catholics can be saved but only in spite of being Catholic, not because of being Catholic. They profoundly disdain the efficacy of any sacrament even though they tell you they have 2, Baptism and Lord’s Supper, they call these sacraments but have no sacramental theology. In fact they do have 2, Baptism and Matrimony but they repudiate that these confer the grace they signify.

They invite me to stuff because I’m a nice old guy. I went to a baby dedication today and the family had a big lunch afterward. The pastor came up and introduced himself, said he’s heard all about me. I said: “Well every bit of what you heard is true.” then we talked about the weather.

I have studied and pondered Evangelicalism for almost 20 years and I can find no logic or Scriptural basis in it. It simply lacks congruence at every turn. But, it makes people happy as a clam and all the ones I have met are salt of the earth. So to each his own but I do find it appalling that they deny sanctifying grace to their little children because of some goofy misinterpretation of Scripture.

Have you read this thread?

 

[JRRTFAN]

Have you read this thread?

no, I went to the end to begin. Did I commit a faux paux? Do you agree with me?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Sorry, that link doesn’t work. I’ll try again, or it can be Googled under “Evangelical Congregational Church Sacraments”.

eccenter.com/ecc/media/EC-Brochures/Sacraments.pdf

Okay, the above link works for me.

LOL, if I agreed with your assessment of Evangelicalism, JRRTFAN, I wouldn’t be an Evangelical.

Among the many things we discussed on this thread already, the above link is about sacraments from the Evangelical church I grew up in. Though that is a smaller denomination which was organized to answer a specific need in early America, there are a host of sister churches with Wesleyan Methodist roots which are very similar. Together we make up a much larger part of Evangelicalism than most CAF Catholic posters appear to realize.

The largest single such church would be The Church of the Nazarene, with 2.1 million members—not huge, but still a significant source flowing into the the mainstream of American Evangelicalism, not a backwater. While I agree with some of the criticisms that modern Evangelicals often have a poor understanding of sacramental theology, a good part of Evangelicalism is based on Wesleyan Methodism (as I said) which does have a clear sacramental theology. Some of that sacramental theology has been muffled for a time in some Wesleyan-rooted churches, but it’s also being reawakened for at least as long as I can remember (I’m 46). You should find the following interview helpful. It’s with Rob Staples, a Nazarene theologian who wrote Outward Signs and Inward Grace: The Place of Sacraments in Wesleyan Spirituality two decades ago. www.graceandpeacemagazine.org/magazine/current-issue/366-considering-the-sacraments-and-worship-an-interview-with-rob-l-staples

And, JRRTFAN, though, lol, I don’t think you committed a faux pas, for those of us who have given our time to try to offer information towards understanding Evangelicals on this thread, it does seem courteous to me to read the thread before jumping into the dance…IMO.

I’m late to the dance here, but I’m married to an Evangelical (former Catholic) and all her friends (and our children’s friends) are Evangelical. My son is an elder in an Evangelical mega-church of national repute.

The general concept they espouse is that Catholics can be saved but only in spite of being Catholic, not because of being Catholic. They profoundly disdain the efficacy of any sacrament even though they tell you they have 2, Baptism and Lord’s Supper, they call these sacraments but have no sacramental theology. In fact they do have 2, Baptism and Matrimony but they repudiate that these confer the grace they signify.

They invite me to stuff because I’m a nice old guy. I went to a baby dedication today and the family had a big lunch afterward. The pastor came up and introduced himself, said he’s heard all about me. I said: “Well every bit of what you heard is true.” then we talked about the weather.

I have studied and pondered Evangelicalism for almost 20 years and I can find no logic or Scriptural basis in it. It simply lacks congruence at every turn. But, it makes people happy as a clam and all the ones I have met are salt of the earth. So to each his own but I do find it appalling that they deny sanctifying grace to their little children because of some goofy misinterpretation of Scripture.

 

[simspt]

I’m late to the dance here, but I’m married to an Evangelical (former Catholic) and all her friends (and our children’s friends) are Evangelical. My son is an elder in an Evangelical mega-church of national repute.

The general concept they espouse is that Catholics can be saved but only in spite of being Catholic, not because of being Catholic. They profoundly disdain the efficacy of any sacrament even though they tell you they have 2, Baptism and Lord’s Supper, they call these sacraments but have no sacramental theology. In fact they do have 2, Baptism and Matrimony but they repudiate that these confer the grace they signify.

They invite me to stuff because I’m a nice old guy. I went to a baby dedication today and the family had a big lunch afterward. The pastor came up and introduced himself, said he’s heard all about me. I said: “Well every bit of what you heard is true.” then we talked about the weather.

I have studied and pondered Evangelicalism for almost 20 years and I can find no logic or Scriptural basis in it. It simply lacks congruence at every turn. But, it makes people happy as a clam and all the ones I have met are salt of the earth. So to each his own but I do find it appalling that they deny sanctifying grace to their little children because of some goofy misinterpretation of Scripture.

I agree w/ you the majority but not all evangelicals are of the same theological commitments. Craig Allert is an Evangelical who I have found helpful w/ differentiating different positions within evangelicalism for example check this biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/sola-scriptura_allert.pdf

 

[JRRTFAN]

I agree w/ you the majority but not all evangelicals are of the same theological commitments. Craig Allert is an Evangelical who I have found helpful w/ differentiating different positions within evangelicalism for example check this biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/sola-scriptura_allert.pdf

I think if we look at Evangelicalism as a whole we find a Baptistic type group, essentially holding to the “once saved, always saved” concept. The differences tend to be in the preaching style, the music, etc. One can cite Wesleyian offshoots and etc. But, in fact, if they held to Wesleyanism they would be closer to the tree and be Methodists. Wesleyanism is an offshoot of Anglicanism and not Calvinism, which is where modern American Evangelicalsm came from.

The theology boils down to that espoused by the pastor or “leadership team” and the congregation includes those who agree with that theology. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such a plethora of communions.

The original question was: What do Evangelicals think of Catholics. I related my 20 year experience with my wife and 3 children as Evangeicals, my oldest being an elder in a non-denominational mega church of national repute. One can either accept that experience as true or consider it a lie. It makes no difference to me. The fact is Evangelicals (as a whole) consider that if a Catholic is saved, he is saved despite his being Catholic. Interestingly, I think if an Evangelical is saved it will be in spite of his reliance on an single act off faith, not because of it.

 

[ltwin]

I think if we look at Evangelicalism as a whole we find a Baptistic type group, essentially holding to the “once saved, always saved” concept.

Sorry, but this is not true. Evangelicalism as a whole is certainly not OSAS or Baptistic. Yes, Baptists are an important part, but they certainly are not the be all and end all of international Evangelicalism (which is more and more taking on a Pentecostal and thus Wesleyan flavor) and even in American Evangelicalism the variety is too great to simply say most Evangelicals are Baptistic types who adhere to OSAS.

The differences tend to be in the preaching style, the music, etc. One can cite Wesleyian offshoots and etc. But, in fact, if they held to Wesleyanism they would be closer to the tree and be Methodists.

Then explain the the Wesleyan Church, the Nazarene Church, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Church of God (Cleveland), the Church of God in Christ, etc., etc.

It would be a mistake to assume that what is commonly seen as Methodism today represents anything like early Methodism. The early Methodists were much more experiential and revivalistic.

Wesleyanism is an offshoot of Anglicanism and not Calvinism, which is where modern American Evangelicalsm came from.

No, modern American Evangelicalism comes from a confluence or perhaps more of a coalition of Calvinism, Puritanism, and Pietism/Wesleyan-Arminianism. Evangelicalism is a melting pot.

What you’re describing is modern American Fundamentalism, which indeed has Calvinist roots. Yet, there were whole sectors of Evangelicalism that had nothing to do with the Fundamentalists and were rejected by them (I’m speaking of the Holiness Movement).

Once again, I’ll link to this interview with Wesleyan scholar Donald Dayton at Modern Reformation on Are Charismatic-Inclined Pietists the True Evangelicals? And Have the Reformed Tried to Highjack Their Movement?

The theology boils down to that espoused by the pastor or “leadership team” and the congregation includes those who agree with that theology. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such a plethora of communions.

That might be true for some churches of a non-denominational variety, but there are still denominational churches who require that ministers and churches follow an official doctrinal line to various degrees.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I agree w/ you the majority but not all evangelicals are of the same theological commitments. Craig Allert is an Evangelical who I have found helpful w/ differentiating different positions within evangelicalism for example check this biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/sola-scriptura_allert.pdf

That’s an interesting paper. I’ll have to finish reading it this evening. Thanks.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The original question was: What do Evangelicals think of Catholics. I related my 20 year experience with my wife and 3 children as Evangeicals, my oldest being an elder in a non-denominational mega church of national repute. One can either accept that experience as true or consider it a lie. It makes no difference to me. The fact is Evangelicals (as a whole) consider that if a Catholic is saved, he is saved despite his being Catholic. Interestingly, I think if an Evangelical is saved it will be in spite of his reliance on an single act off faith, not because of it.

JRRTFAN—Since this is the one part Itwin didn’t address, I’ll add that I certaintly don’t think you’re lying by any means. You’re free to relate your experience without being accused of anything like that. But, when people of scholarly study (Itwin and Contarini in particular on this thread ) and wider, longer experience and wide informal reading (Cat and myself come to my mind here) offer corrective facts and evidence, ISTM it’s wise to listen or else plead disinterest to further understanding.

 

[JRRTFAN]

JRRTFAN—Since this is the one part Itwin didn’t address, I’ll add that I certaintly don’t think you’re lying by any means. You’re free to relate your experience without being accused of anything like that. But, when people of scholarly study (Itwin and Contarini in particular on this thread ) and wider, longer experience and wide informal reading (Cat and myself come to my mind here) offer corrective facts and evidence, ISTM it’s wise to listen or else plead disinterest to further understanding.

Now let’s examine this concept. a) the one part of what I said that you didn’t examine is the root of the original question. My friend, the question was “what was my experience”. You and Cat can sit in a dark room and ruminate about what that has been for 2500 years and you won’t know my experience. Is this kind of delusion normal in the Pentecostal ranks?

If you were a scholar (no offense) of religious trends in North America you would realize that modern Evangelicalism is largely the product of Billy Graham and Bill Bright, not Jimmy Swaggert (who thinks even less of Catholics than Graham and Bright). You’re simply wrong, but I do refer you to Mark Noll’s excellent book: America’s God. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College (I say this for other readers, you as a scholar, have read him.) He might fill you in in a more user friendly way than me, refer to the notes you made when you read him.

But to the point, how does the scholarship of Cat and yourself equip you to tell me what my experience is? This is the really interesting question, and I would aver you are wasting your time with me when so many other miracles need to be worked in the world.

Cue the Twilight Zone theme…

 

[Cat]

Now let’s examine this concept. a) the one part of what I said that you didn’t examine is the root of the original question. My friend, the question was “what was my experience”. You and Cat can sit in a dark room and ruminate about what that has been for 2500 years and you won’t know my experience. Is this kind of delusion normal in the Pentecostal ranks?

If you were a scholar (no offense) of religious trends in North America you would realize that modern Evangelicalism is largely the product of Billy Graham and Bill Bright, not Jimmy Swaggert (who thinks even less of Catholics than Graham and Bright). You’re simply wrong, but I do refer you to Mark Noll’s excellent book: America’s God. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College (I say this for other readers, you as a scholar, have read him.) He might fill you in in a more user friendly way than me, refer to the notes you made when you read him.

But to the point, how does the scholarship of Cat and yourself equip you to tell me what my experience is? This is the really interesting question, and I would aver you are wasting your time with me when so many other miracles need to be worked in the world.

Cue the Twilight Zone theme…

Whoa, please leave me out of this. I never said (and neither did AbideWithMe) that I can tell you what your experience is.

In Post #143, you described your background:

Evangelical Protestantism encompasses a large number of denominations, so it’s really impossible to list what Evangelicals believe and be correct 100% of the time.

E.g., the Evangelical Protestant denominations that my husband and I were involved with for the first 47 years of our lives never used the term “sacraments.” In fact, we stated in our Statements of Faith that we didn’t practice “sacraments,” but instead, we practiced two “ordinances,” baptism (by immersion) and communion (symbolic). Matrimony is not considered an “ordinance,” at least in the denominations that we were part of.

I recommend reading Christianity Today magazine as a good way to keep track of the Evangelical "pulse. The interesting thing is, CT includes Catholicism as a Christian church, features commentary by Catholics both ancient and modern, and occasionally includes articles by Catholics. This contradicts what you said in Post #143: “The general concept they [Evangelicals] espouse is that Catholics can be saved but only in spite of being Catholic, not because of being Catholic.”

Like I said, you really can’t state that Evangelicals believe this or don’t believe that, because Evangelicalism is a big umbrella that includes many different denominations. The one thing that I think it’s safe to say that all Evangelicals share is a zeal for evangelism. And this contradicts something else you said in Post #143: “I have studied and pondered Evangelicalism for almost 20 years and I can find no logic or Scriptural basis in it.” Look up Matthew 28: 18-20. This is Evangelicalism in 3 verses.

 

[ltwin]

Now let’s examine this concept. a) the one part of what I said that you didn’t examine is the root of the original question. My friend, the question was “what was my experience”. You and Cat can sit in a dark room and ruminate about what that has been for 2500 years and you won’t know my experience. Is this kind of delusion normal in the Pentecostal ranks?

Clarification, I think I’m the only active Pentecostal here. Though does Cat have some AG background? Maybe.

If you were a scholar (no offense) of religious trends in North America you would realize that modern Evangelicalism is largely the product of Billy Graham and Bill Bright, not Jimmy Swaggert (who thinks even less of Catholics than Graham and Bright). You’re simply wrong, but I do refer you to Mark Noll’s excellent book: America’s God. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College (I say this for other readers, you as a scholar, have read him.) He might fill you in in a more user friendly way than me, refer to the notes you made when you read him.

I’d be surprised if Mark Noll claims that “if we look at Evangelicalism as a whole we find a Baptistic type group, essentially holding to the ‘once saved, always saved’ concept.”

He does call evangelicalism a “hodge-podge.” And I agree. It’s not Baptistic. It’s a hodge-podge. Here is what else he says:

That evangelical hodge-podge must begin with the articulate Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who, because they published so much and occupied such elite social positions, have regularly been allowed to stand for the whole of American theology during this period. That hodge-podge also included Methodists, the most numerous religious movement in America from the Revolution to the Civil War, but a tradition whose historiography until recently has been as weak as its life on the ground was strong. It took in Baptists, “Christians,” Restorationists, and other sectarians whose theology promoted anti-formalist principles that vigorously contested the hegemonic formalism of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. It included African Americans, . . . It also involved . . . Lutherans, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and low-church Episcopalians . . . (America’s God, page 5. )
​

It’s still a hodge-podge. That’s all I’m saying. Saying they’re all just Baptists really is far too simplistic. They’re not all Baptists. Not even close.

It’s not even close to say “The differences tend to be in the preaching style, the music, etc.” That’s simply not true. And if it’s true for your experience, then you obviously haven’t experienced much of Evangelicalism because American Evangelicalism is a powerhouse of subtle and not-so-subtle theological controversy.

But to the point, how does the scholarship of Cat and yourself equip you to tell me what my experience is? This is the really interesting question, and I would aver you are wasting your time with me when so many other miracles need to be worked in the world.

Cue the Twilight Zone theme…

 

[AbideWithMe]

Now let’s examine this concept. a) the one part of what I said that you didn’t examine is the root of the original question. My friend, the question was “what was my experience”. You and Cat can sit in a dark room and ruminate about what that has been for 2500 years and you won’t know my experience. Is this kind of delusion normal in the Pentecostal ranks?

If you were a scholar (no offense) of religious trends in North America you would realize that modern Evangelicalism is largely the product of Billy Graham and Bill Bright, not Jimmy Swaggert (who thinks even less of Catholics than Graham and Bright). You’re simply wrong, but I do refer you to Mark Noll’s excellent book: America’s God. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College (I say this for other readers, you as a scholar, have read him.) He might fill you in in a more user friendly way than me, refer to the notes you made when you read him.

But to the point, how does the scholarship of Cat and yourself equip you to tell me what my experience is? This is the really interesting question, and I would aver you are wasting your time with me when so many other miracles need to be worked in the world.

Cue the Twilight Zone theme…

JRRTFAN–I’m sorry if my post was confusing. In hindsight I think I see the problem: I should have said “or” instead of “and” between talking about Itwin and Contarini as having scholarly qualifications and then Cat and myself as having long experience and being well-read. Contarini is a history professor (IIRC his area of expertise is Reformation history, but he has a better overview of wider church history than we who aren’t historians) who has an Evangelical background and who taught in an Evangelical college though he’s an Episcopalian who is converting to Catholicism. Itwin is a Pentecostal Evangelical working towards his Master’s in church history–specializing in Pentecostal history in America, I believe.

Cat is a Catholic convert from a long Evangelical background, and I’m a longtime Evangelical who is pretty well-read and well-traveled.

I did not discount your experience at all. You are best-situated to know your experience. But being an expert in one’s own experience doesn’t necessarily make a person an expert in Evangelicalism, which is very diverse and hard to define even for Evangelical scholars and historians.

In many ways I, who am not a historian by profession, gladly defer to those who are–on this thread, that’s Itwin and Contarini, not Cat or myself. I do have an amateur’s interest in history, and so I maintain we can’t begin to understand modern American Evangelicalism without tracing back to its Mainline sources. Do that, and I think you’ll see why it’s a mistake to say Evangelicalism is mostly Baptistic. Rather than being any one, homogenous thing which can be described “on the whole”, I think it’s more like a big tent. We Evangelicals come together to cooperate, converse, and argue under the wide tent, but we still maintain (with some mutual influence and cross-pollination) the marks of our Mainline roots. As for me, for example, my confirmation and formative religious upbringing was in an Evangelical, early Methodist-rooted church and so I believe in having a sacramental theology including the possibility of infant baptism.

I was not meaning it to be a snarky swipe if anyone were to “plead a disinterest in further understanding” Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is hard to define and describe even for dedicated Evangelical scholars. Most non-Evangelicals could spend their time better than to try to study Evangelicalism so well that they’d be qualified to make statements beyond their their personal experience. I think it’s good we various Christian groups try to study and understand each other better in an amateur’s way. But if you ever catch me making blanket statements, as if I were an expert, not an amateur, about a Christian group I don’t belong to —such as Catholicism–without qualifying them as either based on my limited personal experience or my understanding which is open to correction by practicing Catholics, please do feel free to call me on it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Clarification, I think I’m the only active Pentecostal here. Though does Cat have some AG background? Maybe.

I’d be surprised if Mark Noll claims that “if we look at Evangelicalism as a whole we find a Baptistic type group, essentially holding to the ‘once saved, always saved’ concept.”

He does call evangelicalism a “hodge-podge.” And I agree. It’s not Baptistic. It’s a hodge-podge. Here is what else he says:

That evangelical hodge-podge must begin with the articulate Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who, because they published so much and occupied such elite social positions, have regularly been allowed to stand for the whole of American theology during this period. That hodge-podge also included Methodists, the most numerous religious movement in America from the Revolution to the Civil War, but a tradition whose historiography until recently has been as weak as its life on the ground was strong. It took in Baptists, “Christians,” Restorationists, and other sectarians whose theology promoted anti-formalist principles that vigorously contested the hegemonic formalism of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. It included African Americans, . . . It also involved . . . Lutherans, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and low-church Episcopalians . . . (America’s God​

, page 5. )
​

It’s still a hodge-podge. That’s all I’m saying. Saying they’re all just Baptists really is far too simplistic. They’re not all Baptists. Not even close.

It’s not even close to say “The differences tend to be in the preaching style, the music, etc.” That’s simply not true. And if it’s true for your experience, then you obviously haven’t experienced much of Evangelicalism because American Evangelicalism is a powerhouse of subtle and not-so-subtle theological controversy.

Thank you ltwin for acknowledging the hodgepodge nature of evangelicalism.

Throughout this thread I formed the impression that you and others were trying to say Evangelicalism is rich with sacraments and liturgy.

Of course as a whole that us not the case, although I understand it is your experience that it is.

But where I am out in California, the hodgepodge is largely baptist leaning and anti liturgy/sacrament.

Whether it’s truly the majority of evangelicalism to be informal baptist leaning I don’t know.

I will venture out to say that the majority of mega church and tv churches are this type mixed with some prosperity gospel and so it is that flavor of evangelicalism that many see and experience.

 

[ltwin]

Thank you ltwin for acknowledging the hodgepodge nature of evangelicalism.

I’m pretty sure I never denied it. If I’m guilty of overemphasizing the Wesleyan heritage of Evangelicalism, it is only in reaction to an overemphasis of the Baptistic heritage.

Throughout this thread I formed the impression that you and others were trying to say Evangelicalism is rich with sacraments and liturgy.

Well some types of Evangelicalism are rich in sacraments and liturgy.

Of course as a whole that us not the case, although I understand it is your experience that it is.

Well, I never claimed to be liturgical. Pentecostals are more of the free Spirit variety. However, I have felt it necessary to point out that even a low-church Pentecostal who attends a church where people shout, run, and have tent revivals has heard the word “sacrament” used in reference to the Lord’s Supper. (Apparently, some people think the word is anathema to us evangelicals. It’s not.)

There seems to be this need to make hard and fast distinctions when we get to these things. “Evangelicals don’t do ceremony.” Well, actually that’s not true. Even the lowest of low-church evangelicals have lots of ceremonies and rituals, and some times they can be quite elaborate. “Evangelicals don’t use words like sacrament.” Well, that’s not true either. “Evangelicals all believe that the Lord’s Supper is strictly memorial observance and nothing, nothing else.” Well, that’s not true either.

But where I am out in California, the hodgepodge is largely baptist leaning and anti liturgy/sacrament.

Well, what do you mean by “baptist leaning.” And what do you mean by “anti liturgy/sacrament”? Surely you aren’t saying that a Baptist church and an Assemblies of God church are both “baptistic leaning” simply because their churches look alike, they sing the same songs, they have congregational governance, and they baptize in bathtubs.

I don’t consider low-church attitudes and baptism by immersion to be something that places me in the Baptist-by-another-name camp.

And when you say a church is “anti liturgy/sacrament” are you basing that conclusion on whether the church uses incense, etc.? Before you dismiss a church as anti-sacramental because it lacks a liturgical atmosphere traditionally attached to sacramental theology, you might want to look deeper than that. Sometimes, the Christians we automatically assume are deprived of any sacramental understanding are actually displaying subtle signs of some sort of sacramental thought.

Whether it’s truly the majority of evangelicalism to be informal baptist leaning I don’t know.

OK, see, I don’t define “baptist leaning” to mean an “informal” approach to church. Baptists are a distinct tradition and a denominational family. I am “informal” and there are a lot of things that I share with Baptists in that regard. Yet, as a Pentecostal Christian, we are world’s apart in many things.

For one thing, when I hear “Baptist leaning” my mind automatically jumps to eternal security. That’s not something I as a Pentecostal can subscribe to. It’s not something that a lot of evangelicals can subscribe to. So to tell me that if I’m going to be a “normal” evangelical I have to be more Baptist-like is ridiculous.

I will venture out to say that the majority of mega church and tv churches are this type mixed with some prosperity gospel and so it is that flavor of evangelicalism that many see and experience.

See, that’s a foreign concept to me. Most prosperity gospel teachers are not “Baptist” styled. There is a certain “Southern gospel” style preaching and demeanor that many adopt, but that isn’t “Baptist.” It’s regional, and the Baptists just happen to be the largest denomination in that region.

Yet, no Baptist is gonna claim the prosperity teachers as being “Baptistic” in outlook. Any Baptist is gonna say “That’s straight up Pentecostalism.”

For one thing, prosperity teaching churches often stress the opportunities for God’s healing power to be manifested in the Lord’s Supper. They place greater emphasis on things like Anointing the Sick, laying on of hands, and sanctified objects such as prayer cloths. That’s a much more sacramental understanding of things than you’re ever likely to find in a typical Baptist Church.

And I’m not saying that Baptists can’t be sacramental. They can. I remember as part of the my youth group we went to a youth revival held at a country Baptist church. The Baptist minister pulled out anointing oil and started praying for people. When he did that though I knew we weren’t in a typical Baptist church.

The same goes with mega-churches. Just because they are often informal does not mean they are derived from or have been influenced by Baptists.

 

[Cat]

Clarification, I think I’m the only active Pentecostal here. Though does Cat have some AG background? Maybe.

My husband was born and raised in the Assemblies of God, in a church that grew to over 5000 during his teen years (1970s–at that time, 5000 was considered a “megachurch.” Now it’s just a large church, and megachurches attract 20,000 or more.)

My husband left the Assemblies of God and started attending my church (Conference Baptist) when we were seniors in high school.
When we were in college, we both attended a Christian church (Campbellite). My husband became a deacon in this church. Of all the churches we attended, we consider this church closest to Catholicism, and it definitely gave us a love for Communion and prepared us to long for and believe in Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

When we moved to North Carolina, we attended a Southern Baptist church for a few years, then switched to a Christian and Missionary Alliance church for ten years. This C&MA church was literally heaven-on-earth, and had we remained in North Carolina, there’s a good chance we would still be there. It’s the only church my younger daughter has any “good” memories of; all other churches have failed or hurt her in some way.

We left North Carolina and spent several years trying to start a C&MA church in Northern Illinois, but it was a dismal failure. Tthe C&MA did not place a pastor with a gift for church-planting in the position, and we failed because there are already so many excellent Evangelical Protestant churches in our area, including the amazing Willowcreek church in Barrington.

We decided to go back to my family roots, and so started attending the one Reformed Church in our city (Reformed Church in America). Amazingly, we found relatives, including a family with a girl cousin that was my daughter’s age. These two became good friends. We weren’t especially comfortable with the theology (Calvinism), and we didn’t really find the liturgical worship condusive to worship. But what made us quit this church was when they fired their pastor, a family man with several children, and hired a woman pastor whose husband was a pastor at another church of another denomination in the city! Yikes! Both of us were raised to believe that women pastors are NOT Biblical, and we fled that church. Literally fled it.

We attended my childhood Conference Baptist church for two years, but it’s true–you can’t go home again. Things had drastically changed, especially in music; we had an internationally-famous and beloved Music Pastor, and he dominated. During the entire two years that we were there, I never once was alllowed to play to the piano for worship services. There were other deeper problems; the pastor’s wife was “difficult.”

So we decided to break ties, and began attending an Evangelical Free Church. We were there for seven years, and as we had in all our other churches, we worked our tails off doing whatever ministries needed doing. My daughters were involved in the youth group and my older daughter was actually invited to be on their “Leadership Team.” She attended several of the National Youth Conferences (whatever they were called back then). She was the team leader for a group of teens and chaperones from the church who attended the March For Life in Washington, DC.

My younger daughter was no so enamored of this church. From the very beginning, she protested this church,and told us that we shouldn’t be there because the church was “evil.”

We should have listened to her.

I was asked to take over the Children’s Choir. During the first year, I had 24 kids. The second year, it grew to 48. The third year, I had over 60 kids. In other words, whatever I was doing, kids and their parents liked it.

But a woman pastor in the church did NOT like it or me. (She wasn’t a real “pastor,” she was just the Minister of Children in the church, which is not an ordained position.) She began undermining me, and eventually accused me of frightening the children and leading them astray. She hinted at darker things (sexual). Thankfully, I had always included parents in my weekly rehearsal, so I had plenty of witnesses that she was accusing me falsely.

But that didn’t stop her. She had a “Tribunal” assembled, and the accusation was that we were refusing to submit to the church authorities. My husband and I were absolutely floored. As any of you know who have been reading my posts over the years, I (and my husband) are absolutely sticklers for obeying authority–that’s the main reason we decided to convert to Catholicism–because we came to believe that this Church really IS The Church that Jesus Christ Himself established on this earth, and therefore, all Christians should submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Tribunal consisted of people that we didn’t even know and who had never met us. At the end of the "meeting,’ they told us to leave the church.

(continued next post)

 

[Cat]

(continued from last post)

When we got home, in tears, my younger daughter was waiting. When she heard what had happened, she started screaming, “I TOLD YOU!!! All these years, I told you that church is EVIL! You should have listened!”

This awful event had the effect of driving us away from ANY church for over a year. It was so strange to not be in church every day of the week. We didn’t know what to do with ourselves. I suffered grisly nightmares about betrayal, torture, and executions for a solid year, and still have major trust issues with any church figures, including Catholic Church figures. The only Person I trust completely is Jesus.

Eventually the Holy Spirit led us to the Catholic Church, but that’s another post and another thread!

My older daughter was in college at the time. She immediately quit going to church. She said, “Mom and Dad, if they can throw YOU out, after all the work you’ve done in the church, what will they do to me?” She eventually found her way to the Catholic Church and converted, and is gloriously happy in Catholicism.

My younger daughter still does not attend any church. We suspect that there might have been more to her abuse than she will ever tell us. I believe that the Blessed Mother pleads with her Son for my daughter, and begs Him to be gentle with her because of whatever she went through at that Evangelical Free Church.

To sum up, our experiences are typical of many Evangelical Protestant Christians. “Church-hopping” is very common. In our case, it happened because we moved to different parts of the country, but when we settled in Northern Illinois, we “hopped” to four different churches. This is typical.

I hope this post is thought-provoking and helpful to understanding Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thanks for your post, Cat. If it’s not too personal a question–does your younger daughter still believe in Christianity, although she doesn’t go to any church? I’ve wondered about that before, so I hope you don’t mind my asking. It’s hard to avoid wondering if there was some actual sexual abuse perpetrated by someone in that church. In my area, it seems almost weekly some authority figure–teachers, policemen, ministers, priests, etc—is revealed to be involved in some sexual abuse scandal. It’s hard to know who to trust. At the same time, I’m sad for all these people who lead hidden, double lives.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you ltwin for acknowledging the hodgepodge nature of evangelicalism.

Throughout this thread I formed the impression that you and others were trying to say Evangelicalism is rich with sacraments and liturgy.

Of course as a whole that us not the case, although I understand it is your experience that it is.

But where I am out in California, the hodgepodge is largely baptist leaning and anti liturgy/sacrament.

Whether it’s truly the majority of evangelicalism to be informal baptist leaning I don’t know.

I will venture out to say that the majority of mega church and tv churches are this type mixed with some prosperity gospel and so it is that flavor of evangelicalism that many see and experience.

Jon–In talking and giving links about sacramental theology within Evangelicalism, I was responding to some blanket statements made by other posters in which they stated that Evangelicals have no sacramental beliefs. That 's true of some Evangelicals, but false as a blanket statement.

Also, some Evangelicals who have no formal sacramental theology, in practice have a worldview which believes many things to be sacramental, not just the two or seven channels named as “sure and certain” biblically specified sacraments accepted by CC and Protestants. And in some ways, groups such as Quakers which have no formal sacraments could be understood as expanding the sacraments to all of life, not contracting them down to none.