Nothing has left me more humbled than reading church history. It's one story after another of people saying, "We've finally got it right!" I used to read church history thinking, "Sorry suckahs, I've got it right." Then it finally hit me...

The thought of hearing Ed Cyzewski say "Sorry suckahs" pretty much made my day. :)

Even the evangelical claiming of the Reformation doesn't quite work. Evangelicalism is far narrower than the Reformation as a whole - it is, specifically, an Anglo-American movement of the eighteenth century influenced by German pietism. Much of modern evangelical worship and tradition is bizarre to European Reformed, Lutheran etc. Christians.

"When we use the word “evangelicalism” as interchangeable with “Christianity” in the ways we so often do, what we are essentially claiming is evangelicalism is Christianity. While evangelicalism may be Christian, Christianity is not exhausted by the evangelical tradition. To act otherwise is, as I’ve already said many times, the height of ignorance and arrogance."

Yes, exactly, and this was exactly what I was encountering at my previous church. The dismissal wasn't explicit, but it was everywhere - from saying that sola fides is exactly what Romans teaches, to telling the congregation how to correct 'Catholic friends.' What I found most harmful was that I, as a new Christian, was taking all of this at face value. So I genuinely thought that a true 'Bible-teaching' church looked exactly like that church with its Reformed theology, belief in God's absolute sovereignty and literal way of reading Scripture. I thought churches that had priests in robes and congregants that crossed themselves were quaint relics of an old tradition that wasn't quite in line with proper church. And without me knowing it, I was suffocating in that kind of narrow evangelism.

Thankfully, I left that church a few months ago and have now been attending an Anglican church where I'm learning to breathe again. And the more I participate in liturgical worship, the more I realize how stupid it was for me to dismiss high church tradition.

I completely resonate with your experience except I grew up in evangelicalism. In my evangelical church everything was in your head...intellectual. What I love about liturgical worship is that it incorporates our mind body and soul in worshiping God. Whereas before, church was about hearing the best music and best pastor (all about me), liturgical worship in its very nature, is about worshiping God. So refreshing!

Yes, I find liturgical worship much more participatory and complex - it has shades that resonate with different emotions, but maintains constancy, which I love. This isn't to dismiss non-liturgical worship, but liturgy has been what has worked best for me.

To me evangelicalism means nothing but Calvinists and Calvinist sympathizers and Calvinists who haven't figured out yet that the word Calvinist covers what they believe.

Lots of good points, here, Zack.

I guess this means Challies won't allow that the experience of a person like this:

http://www.everyday-saints....

is truly Christian then (since it definitely busts the bounds of his brand of Evangelical "orthodoxy")!

On the other hand, I am Orthodox because it is a faith capable of producing men (and women) like this, whose lives and spiritual depth/gifts are simply not explainable apart from the grace (and mystery) of God Himself working in His Church.

"Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever."

I just "stumbled" upon this blog and I really appreciate the main thread as well as the comments that followed. I also love that like you, Zack, I was brought up in the Nazarene church. I met and married my husband at church, although he was brought up Pentecostal (not UPC, but AG). I left my church to join his and we have been there for over 25 years. I'm grateful for the exposure to pentecostalism and have learned much over the years. That said, I have grown increasingly discontented with the idea that we have it "right" because that means that a lot of people that I am in relationship with and love deeply have it "wrong". That's not okay with me and so I began to delve into what exactly is the core of our belief system. It started when I read "The Ragamuffin Gospel" by Brennan Manning. I wept through the entire book because Mr. Manning put all of my internal "knowings" into words. I am still in an AG church with a community of people that I love and have a long history with. However, there are days when I long to return to my Nazarene roots. At the end of the day though, I know where Jesus dwells and I know that a certain worship tradition doesn't trump another. I can participate in both (or several) without compromising my faith in the sacrificial atonement of Christ and my commitment to conducting my life in a way that will reflect Christ's attitude of grace and unconditional love. Of course, while that is the goal, Jesus was/is God and we are mere mortals and some days life is just crappy and we don't exemplify all that is "Christian," whether it is Evangelical Christian, Mystical Christian, Orthodox Christian or any other description of Christianity one would like to use.

One does not choose to be a mystic, you are just inclined to be a mystic. This is my personal experience. It wasn't until I stumbled on the works of Hildegard of Bingen did I understand this better. Her contributions to medicine, music, and theology were astounding.

I really enjoy your blog Zach, especially posts like this that resonate closely with me as to why I left the evangelical tradition.

I am really curious, with your knowledge of the reformation and church history, what is holding you back from becoming Orthodox/Catholic?

For me, once I saw the historical truth of Christianity and saw that the early church believed things like infant baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist, the authority of bishops/Magesterium etc... And this same church under the Holy Spirit canonized the New Testament, I had a hard time saying God left that tradition at some point and an even harder time justifying why I did not have the same traditions as the first century church.

That's a fair question. There are a few reasons. A big one would the closed table in the RCC. I have HUGE theological issues with that. I also find the veneration of the saints and Mary to be problematic (but, no, it's not because I think they're being worshipped). There's other issues too, but on a basic level, I just don't care for high church worship. Between the two, if I ever changed teams it would probably be to join the Orthodox. I think they were right in 1054 and I like a lot of their other theology. But in the end, I'm with John Wesley who told his Catholic friend who was considering becoming Anglican (there was not Methodist church at the time) that he should stay in the RCC because that where was God had placed him. I feel the same way about the Church of the Nazarene, the tradition in which I am ordained. I was born into it, it has profoundly shaped my faith, and while not perfect by any means I generally agree with it theologically. In other words, I owe a huge debt to my tradition and feel called to give back to the people who gave so much to me. And, because I have a pretty robust pneumatology, I don't believe God is confined to any one Christian tradition. So I stay where I am.

Thanks for your response. I definitely believe the Lord is working through you and you bring up excellent points that need addressing within protestantism in general and certainly within Evangelicalism. I believe people with the mindset of your own are what Christianity needs to heal some of the old hurts of the past. You do a great job, asking the hard questions, and proclaiming Christian Truth so keep it up.

You are not the first person who I have heard that has the closed table of the RCC as a stumbling block. It is very contrary to our American Culture, but I think it is understandable when you really look into it. Also, in the early church (first few hundred years) there was a closed Communion Table. Especially in light of the persecution, Christians were vigilant about evangelizing, but segregated some of the sacraments until Christians were properly catechized and vetted so to speak. They would proclaim Christ, and Baptize. Then during the church meetings the candidates who had been baptized would enter a 3 year catechesis in which they were dismissed from the gathering prior to the Eucharist be taken. This practice still occurs in the Catholic Church today, although it does not take 3 years, but simply an affirmation of belief in what the catholic Church teaches. Communion is a sign of christian unity, so the RCC position is if you do not believe that Christ is really mystically present there, then you are not in communion with the Church, and also if you do not believe the essential doctrines of Christianity, then you should not partake either.

I suppose it ultimately comes down to the sacramental nature of the Eucharist in the RCC verses a simple symbology in most others.

Anyway, keep up the good work, and I pray for you and your outreach through this blog often.

Peace to you!

This is the other danger with not understanding church history: Idealizing the past. Just because the church once thought a certain way does not mean we should forever think that way. The history of mankind is the story of God constantly refining our understanding and practice, and that refining process is not over. That's not to say that there isn't value in traditions but we shouldn't treat them as better just because they're older, either.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more. Of course if you simply mean non revealed traditions, like wearing sandals verses shoes, or meeting in catacombs rather than churches then, sure those can change and do change. However, Revealed truth from God does not change. Our understanding of it may grow over time, but the fundamental truth deposited by God in the NT, and through Christ and the Apostles is the only truth.

During the Old Testament times, God was constantly revealing bits of the truth through his prophets and people. Then the fullness of God's truth was delivered through Christ and the Apostles. The Bible makes it clear that Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Of course their are pseudo christian groups that deny this (i.e.: Mormons), but Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants, affirm this fact. Because of this, we must accept teachings on foundational parts of the Christian Faith as they were presented to us by the Apostles. The Apostles taught an essential doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, an essential doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Authority of the Church, etc... Much of this is found in the NT, and further readings of the earliest church fathers (those that learned directly from the Apostles) further confirm.

I suppose if you want to say that Luther, Calvin, Zuigli, etc..., received Divine Revelation from God and were prophets, then you would have authority for your position, otherwise, they simply replaced God's revealed truth with their own.

Zach makes a great point on the number of denominations today, there are so many, that you can find which ever one floats your boat. This makes Matt 18 pointless regarding handling disputes, you know, first you confront your brother, than you meet with others, than you take it to the church. This worked great when there was 1 authoritative church (and still works great for Catholics), but this is how all those denominations were created. When someone disagreed with the church, then they just created their own, or found one that did agree with their position. This makes truth relative to the individual, which is a false position. There is one truth revealed by God, and it is our duty to follow that truth not out own.

"The Bible makes it clear that Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle."

Where exactly does the Bible make this clear?

The New Covenant, sealed by the blood of Christ is eternal. He died, resurrected, ascended into heaven and will come back to judge the living and the dead. The correct attitude of a Christilan is to accept this revelation and live it while expecting the end times. If there were to be a new revelation, it would be in addition to and outside the eternal covenant... outside of Christ.

Here's how Dei Verbum, the scripture document from the Council, states it: 4. Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." (3) He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)

The following verses seem to indicate that the Christian faith was delivered complete, once and for all, to the saints of the first-century Church, that Christians are to hold to those ancient apostolic traditions, taught by word of mouth or by letter, and that Christians are to reject any new teachings that are contrary to those ancient apostolic traditions.
3Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)
15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9

1) None of these verses indicate that revelation has ceased, only that, only that further revelation may not contradict scripture itself. I believe the Bible itself to be Divine Revelation of a unique type. However...
2) You seem to be equating the ancient apostolic traditions with the canon of scripture itself. I believe this is misguided, although from your worldview I understand your position. Having had many conversations with a Russian Orthodox priest, I know the logic. However...
3) There is a difference between scripture and the church's historical interpretation of scripture. I do not hold the interpretations of Dei Verbum to be of equal weight to scripture itself.

Well, a couple of thoughts,

1) The Bible, particularly the New Testament Canon is a Tradition.

2) Your position that there is a difference between scripture and the churches historical interpretation of scripture is understandable but mistaken. You see, the New Testament is a tiny piece of the entirety of what the Apostles taught. It is the core, and the foundation of beliefs and faith. However, Jesus and the Apostles taught so much more than what is written, as the verses I shared state. We must look at scripture coupled with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. John 20:30-31 " Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Are we to believe these things were unimportant? Or are we to understand, especially in those times (paper a luxury and writing tedious), that there was a lot of clarifying dialogue preached to Christians by the Apostles?

I must say, I find your position understandable in our culture. It is this attitude of relativism and finding your own truth that permeates our culture today. This is how people find justification for abortion and homosexual marriage and a host of other issues within the pages of scripture. This is also how people like Joseph Smith were able to create their own religion.

I suppose you would say, that since God is still revealing his truth to us, we can never know who holds it other than our individual self. After all, you would have no authority to say my interpretation is wrong and yours is right, nor anyone else's for that matter. Maybe the truth is held with the mormons, pentecostals, methodists, evangelicals, SDA, Jehovah's witnesses, evangelicals, or dare I say even cult groups like the Branch Davidians. How are we to know anything for certain with your point of view???

I suppose at this point you would say, "well if its contrary to scripture then that group does not hold the truth". However, your position sets you up for failure as you cannot approach the historical teachings of the church to settle your dispute and the groups that differ from you go to the same pages of the Bible to justify their positions. Hmm if only there was a magesterium and historical writings from the early church that we could go to for clarification of what Christ and the Apostles were really teaching!!! Oh Wait there is!!!

Jon, your church spent 700 years arguing back and forth as to whether blessed Mary had been immmaculately conceived, then declared in 1854 that she had been, and that no one could deny it without an anathema falling on their head. If this was part of the faith once delivered to the saints, why the 700 year argument, and why did St. Thomas and the Dominicans deny it? Why do the Orthodox still not receive it? While Roman Catholicism has half of baptized Christians in its numbers -- and Christ certainly blesses so many members of his Body in that community -- I am just not convinced that Body of Christ = Roman Catholic Church.

You see, without a historical link to the Apostles, a church given authority by God to help analyze debate and declare what the deposit of faith is, you are merely left to people and their opinions. From Joseph Smith to John Mac Arthur. There is no way to determine who is speaking truth in that way, as they all point to the Bible.

God chose a people and Christ founded a church, Matt 16:18, "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hell WILL NOT prevail against it."

He also tells us to take our disputes ( such as this one) to the Church for resolution in Matt 19. So I ask you, which Church? And if the church we decide rules against I can just start my own with other like minded folks right?

It happens every day unfortunately.

Doctrines develop over time. It is because we are trying to understand what God gave us.

The church debated for 300 years the Trinity, that does not prove it is false.

The church debated what books were scripture, they determined the cannon, this does not mean those books aren't scripture.

"For we are one Body with many parts, and even if one part is as big and powerful as evangelicalism, that part cannot say to the rest of the Body, “I don’t need you.” For if that part cuts itself off, it will be the one outside the Body. It will be the one outside the bounds of orthodoxy. It will be the heretic."

This. Thank you.

"What has happened as a result of this constant infighting, is that evangelicalism in particular has increasingly become defined by its ignorance and arrogance, but it’s lack of knowledge about its own history and the audacity with which it portrays itself as the keepers of the one, true faith."

So very true. What's worse is that so many people simply don't care about where their tradition came from--and they're asked, they'd say the Bible. We can't be faithful to Christ if we don't understand just how culturally conditioned our tradition really is and how it might be hindering us from finding the truth.

"What's worse is that so many people simply don't care about where their tradition came from--and they're asked, they'd say the Bible. We can't be faithful to Christ if we don't understand just how culturally conditioned our tradition really is and how it might be hindering us from finding the truth."

I couldn't agree more.