Why Evangelical megachurches are embracing (some) Catholic traditions

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe they are converts from the Catholic Church and they do what they remember seeing done at their home church.
I also saw some neo-protestant cards with Jesus and Mary.
Some may get excited if they will but I just think it brings on an even greater separation because they mimic what they maybe miss and thus they no longer feel to come back because they are comfortable in their own beliefs plus the freedom of doing certain practices they find appealing.
 
It’s an interesting article, but I do have one nit to pick:

Why are megachurches and formerly iconoclastic mainline denominations looking more like Catholic parishes in terms of liturgy and practices…

This is kind of a mixed or unclear expression. Iconoclastic might infer Baptist / Charismatic sorts of churches, often home grown US institutions. But mainline often refers to some of the European imports such as Anglican and Lutheran churches. The first a result of essentially a political power grab that then evolved in its own theological space. The second was essentially an original attempt to reform the Catholic church, abet in some very major ways, that essentially again got wrapped up in politics too. Neither has rejected substantial parts of liturgy and even their teachings on Communion remain substantially similar. I thoroughly believe most Catholics would have no idea which denomination was which if attending a one of these church’s services.

Indeed the majority of changes, in say the Lutheran Church, are not “the Priesthood of the Believer” type form of “sola scriptura” but an attempt to remove Catholic traditions not directly supported in the Bible. I often see this as difference missed in some of the “sola scriptura” threads that come up here. One is in a certain way “anything goes within bounds” the other is highly defined theologically (though with a number of distinct versions) as with the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
I grew up Southern Baptist and I can tell you by experience and observation that American Evangelism is shifting away from emotionalism and shallow theology and practice to a deeper and more intellectual theology and practice. If this shift continues is anyone’s guess but the past decade or so many are finding the hyper emotional and shallow teachings in American Evangelical churches lacking.

This is seen in several areas. One of which is so many people investigation Catholicsm/Orthodoxy and another is the shift toward Reformed/Calvinist Theology in many Denominations.

For instance, the Presbyterian Church of America (the conservative Presbyterians as opposed to the liberal Presbyterian Church USA) is one of, if not the fasted growing denomination in America. Southern Baptist have had an increase in Reformed/Calvinist churches which is due to the influence of Albert Mohler, David Platt and others associated with the Gospel Coalition. Many of the new Non-Denominational churches are now Reformed where ten years ago they were almost all Charismatic/Pentecostal.

These reformed churches are much more likely to study and understand church history and affirm the early creeds.

The church I attend has this statement on it’s website.

We are a church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we are committed to contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). In unity with the historic Christian church, we believe and confess the Apostles’, Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds as accurate representations of Scripture’s teaching. In addition to these historic formulations, we are situated within the evangelical and reformed traditions.
 
Some years back I read an article (sorry I don’t have any links) where they said some Protestant Churches were starting to introduce “confession”, and interestingly, this was a Lay movement and not coming from the ministers.
People do recognize the healing power of letting go of secrets 🙂
 
lanman87 said:
The church I attend has this statement on it’s website.

We are a church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we are committed to contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). In unity with the historic Christian church, we believe and confess the Apostles’, Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds as accurate representations of Scripture’s teaching. In
Click to expand...
Do they recite the “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” and try to rationalize the Catholic part away and try to say it doesn’t mean what it obviously means or do they modify the creeds and leave that out?
 
Last edited:
This really isn’t that new. There has always been a liturgical side to Evangelicalism. John Wesley, who was a leader of the Evangelical Revival in Britain and founder of Methodism, was a high church Anglican.

In regards to Matt Chandler and the Village Church, they are not simply adopting Catholic rituals. Rather they are taking the traditional calendar and using it to inculcate a Calvinist theology. So, it’s not safe to assume these are just Catholic wannabees. Some of these churches remain deeply opposed to Catholic theology, they just find some of the traditional rhythms useful in reinforcing knowledge of Scripture and Christian spirituality. For example, their guide to Lent is full of Puritan prayers lol.

I am impressed with how the Village Church produced an almost 200 page book of devotions, resources, and Bible reading plan for the church year Seasons: Enter the Story of Jesus. They also have a Lent Guide.
 
Last edited:
So they do the former and rationalize it to include them. I believe it applies to all Catholics/Orthodox not just Roman Rite.

That article even quotes “full unity as Jesus wanted.” You aren’t in full unity if you are protesting the church.

Then there is the problem in the Nicene Creed of “apostolic church”.
Bushum said:
Do they recite the “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” and try to rationalize the Catholic part away and try to say it doesn’t mean what it obviously means or do they modify the creeds and leave that out?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
They just take what suits them and role-play.
Sorta like playing house or make-believe. Nothing’s real.
Purely imitation.
 
Last edited:
You really subscribe to the comparison that non-Catholic churches are “playing house” or not real?
 
I’m not arguing the merits of Protestants saying the Nicene Creed. I’m simply saying that the word “catholic” in itself doesn’t obligate somebody saying the Creed to be Roman Catholic.

If you look up “catholic” in your favorite online or hard-copy dictionary, you’ll see the meaning that I provided for you. The word’s etymology predates the schism that created the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. This link does a great job explaining it. catholic | Origin and meaning of catholic by Online Etymology Dictionary
 
The definition of catholic is universal. We define the universal church as God’s People, Empowered by God’s Spirit, Doing God’s work, to the Glory of God. The local church is a microcosm of the universal church.

So when we say we believe in the Holy catholic church that is what we are talking about and this is what we believe the Church Fathers were talking about when the creeds were created.
 
I’ve seen some non denominationals that modify that line to read “One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church”
 
That would be my guess as well. More converts from Catholic and other more liturgical churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc…) bringing some of that flavor with them. Combine that with a move away from shallow theology which can just as easily be fed by tuning into the likes of Joel Osteen and it makes some sense.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
…believe the Church Fathers were talking about when the creeds were created.
Click to expand...
You think the Church Fathers were talking about a 30,000 denomination microcosm of churches all encompassing the universal Church? Seriously? The church fathers were talking about THE Church, which until 500 years ago was the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I doubt they would have even imagined what it has become with everyone making their own rules and interpretations to suit them.

Edited to add: I just realized this is posted in the non-Catholic forum so I will step away now and leave you to it. All of my threads show up lumped together so my apologies for not noticing.
 
Last edited:
Yes, most people don’t know the meaning of the word “catholic.” So replacing the word with “Christian” is an easier approach than explaining it to them.

Here’s one example of an appropriate use of the word: “You ate a Chinese restaurant last night, an Indian one the night before, and now we’re going out for French food. You have remarkably catholic tastes in food.”

It’s correct. But say it to your average Jane or Joe, and they might just give you a puzzled look: “But I’m not Catholic.” “China and India aren’t Catholic countries.”
 
Would you show me where this teaching is found in the Catechism or another official document of the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top