Sadly the term has been taken over by sociologists and by Christians themselves to denote and identify one particular brand or style of protestant Christianity - and thus the term has entered into our common and colloquial vocabulary in this way. The use of the term in popular speech today seems to imply that Christians who are not modern neo-protestants of a very specified variety are not therefore 'evangelical,' and nothing could be further from the truth. The same is true of the term 'catholic,' which is used in vulgar speech to imply that Christians who are not in communion with the Pope of Rome are not catholic. We, the Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics vehemently disagree, as does the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed! We should proudly own the term 'evangelical' and use it as does the New Testament itself, the Church Fathers, and the ancient and medieval Church. For example, medieval and contemporary catholicism emphasise the 'evangelical counsels' of poverty, chastity and obedience, the way or Rule of Life in religious orders based on the example of Our Lord and the Scriptures. The ancients and medievals certainly knew and understood the term evangelical and employed it in its original context - the context of the orthodox Church of the Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Liturgy.
The earliest Lutherans, of course, people of far greater catholic substance than any modern neo-evangelicals today, designated themselves the 'Evangelical Church' in opposition to the Roman Communion. The later term 'Lutheran' was a nickname and an epithet, a term of derision applied to them by their opponents. The Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession make it clear that the Catholic Church of the West, to which Lutherans claimed they belonged and for which they professed their loyalty and fealty, is by her very nature 'evangelical.' These Evangelicals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with their powerful emphasis on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, their belief in baptismal regeneration and sacramental grace, and their retention of liturgy and ministerial order, would hardly meet the latter-day definition or standard of what passes for 'evangelical,' and yet it is they who first used the term in its modern application.
The same is absolutely true for Anglicanism - orthodox Anglicans have always described themselves as 'Evangelical Catholics,' combining the best of both worlds. From the ancient Church we derive our Catholic Faith, Creeds and Sacraments, and our concern for Apostolic Order and Tradition, and from the English reformation we derive our renewed emphasis on the centrality and authority of Scripture, personal conversion and faith, and the Gospel message of salvation for all men for all time. To be truly catholic, the Church must be evangelical; to be truly evangelical, the Church must be catholic. To be authentic, the Church of the Great Commission of Saint Matthew 28 must deliver to all men the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints of Saint Jude 1.3. That which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all, what is truly and properly catholic, the fullness and totality of the Gospel for the fullness and totality of the human race across the globe and throughout time and space - such is the heart of the evangelical Church. The catholicity of the Church is her evangelical mandate and commission: 'because it is universal, holding earnestly the Faith for all time, in all countries, and for all people; and is sent to preach the Gospel to the whole world' (BCP 291). That is what it truly means to be an evangelical Christian. We should pray that all those who today call themselves 'evangelicals' will someday be restored to the faith and practice of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church whose doctrine and tradition is from Our Lord and the Apostles, and is vertiably the plenitude of the Gospel, the fullness of the Evangel, the Good News of the New Life in Christ.
We are Evangelical Catholics and we should never hesitate to say so clearly and distinctly.
We are Evangelical Catholics and we should never hesitate to say so clearly and distinctly.
1 comment:
Dear Father Chad,
Reformed circles differentiate between supralapsarian and infralapsarianism. Though Calvin made positive statements toward both positions. However, most 'calvinists' are infralapsarian. This means they would reject 'double predestination' as you defined it. According to infralapsarian calvinism, God does not "make" or "will" that men become reprobate. Men, by their own free will, give themselves unto sin and thus fall before judgement. There are some nuances, and a person who desires to rapport with Calvinism might try to understand what Calvin and the Calvinists are emphasizing in terms of the salvation plan. I think differences between 'free willers' and 'predestinarians' are often that-- differences of emphasis. Often Calvinists are misportrayed and are far from 'antinomian' and 'double predestination' but take free will and cooperation is salvation extremely seriously. Coming from a Presbyterian church, I always admired the seriousness which holy life and sin played upon the average parishner and in the pastoralship. Also, many Anglicans were "calvinist", eg. Bishop Whitgift who was a favorite of mine due to his wise moderacy. I think much can be bridged if we admit limits to human knowledge/logic, and that the areas of predestination may give us some confidence at sundry times but otherwise are fundamentally mysterious and belong to God's secrets. Anyway, Calvinists do take free will seriously in theory and practice. Their real errors, in my opinion, are not so much soteriological but in church polity and RPW (worship), hence congregationalism and presybterianism.
Post a Comment