The case for being an "Evangelical Catholic"...

... is summarized in the comment box by Dr. Francis Beckwith:

This is why I still consider myself an Evangelical, but just not a Protestant one. Surely it is true that contemporary Evangelicalism has its roots in conservative Protestantism, but it has also been shaped by the Catholic and Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal movements as well as the spirituality and apologetics of authors like C. S. Lewis, who, though an Anglican, produced works that were “Catholic” in their tone and substance. This is why Lewis is one of the most beloved writers among Catholics. Moreover, if one thinks of Evangelicalism as a renewal movement that stresses personal conversion and spiritual development, evangelism, a high view of Scripture, and fidelity to Christian orthodoxy, then one can certainly be a Evangelical Catholic, as I believe I am. If the term “Evangelical” is broad enough to include high-church Anglicans, low-church anti-creedal Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Evangelical Free Church, Arminians, Calvinists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, open theists, atemporal theists, social Trinitarians, substantial Trinitarians, nominalists, realists, eternal security supporters and opponents, temporal theists, dispensationalists, theonomists, church-state separationists, cessationists, non-cessationists, kenotic theorists, covenant theologians, paedo-Baptists, and Dooweyerdians, there should be room for an Evangelical Catholic.

By the way, in case you were wondering, it seems that C.S. Lewis was not only rather Catholic in much of his thinking, he was not an American Fundamentalist.  Shocking.

Comments

[LJ]

Indeed, Dr. Beckwith is absolutely right. There is room for Evangelical Catholics.
I would also concur with R. R. Reno's insight. It is precisely in accepting the authority of the Church that one's reliance on self-interpretation and self-mediation of grace is over. The "solas" are gone. In my own experience, after being convinced that the early church from the apostles on out, was indeed Catholic in all of the most critical doctrines and practices; it was the sudden realization that the Catholic Church was the way Jesus wanted the Church to be.

For one raised an Evangelical, Jesus is all in all. All the "trappings" are stripped away with holy fervour. So when I realized that Jesus himself had set up a Church quite different than the one I had been raised with, I felt the ground shift and shake under me. There is no arguing with Jesus. Any doubts or difficulties about Church doctrines would have to be worked out later because I was in the wrong place and needed to get on track with Jesus. He was for me the source of Church authority and that ended the argument.

But a strange thing happened. I had been away from any church for many years, on the outside looking in, so to speak, but when I experienced a personal conversion and then entered the Catholic Church, what I would call the Evangelical drive was re-awakened. Go figure!
From my own experience then I would say that the biggest and best part of Evangelicalism is a drive, a passion, an ache to see others experience a conversion of heart and a commitment to Jesus Christ for their own salvation, within or without the Church.

But by that measure St. Ignatius of Loyola was an evangelical, as was St. Francis Xavier and Blessed Peter Faber. Many centuries of Jesuit missionaries, I believe, had that same evangelical drive. So Dr. Beckwith, as an Evangelical Catholic, is in great company.

[Kevin]

So, what exactly is the point Dr. Beckwith is trying to make? "Evangelical" has been a termed used to designate pietistic and orthodox Protestants (bye, bye open theists and non-substantial Trinitarians and even "high church" Anglicans). By "orthodox" I simply mean adherence to the common witness of Reformation Christianity; so, e.g., justification by faith alone is central, while being a paedo-baptist vs. a credo-baptist is not seen as fundamental to being an "Evangelical." The pietistic element, of course, stresses a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" accentuated through ministry of the word and song (i.e., preaching and hymns/praise & worship). The history of the term, "Evangelical," as commonly used (certainly in the English-speaking world) goes back to the Great Awakenings, Methodist revivals, Welsh revivals, Billy Graham crusades, etc. If we were in Northern Continental Europe, "Evangelical" is convertible with "Protestant" or "Lutheran," but in our context, this is simply not so. So, what is Beckwith doing other than playing with semantics? What practicing Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox for that matter) isn't "evangelical" on his account? This is nothing other than Protestants saying that they are "catholic" because they affirm the catholic creeds of the early church; which is perfectly fine, but Protestants (certainly not Evangelicals) don't go around saying they are "catholics," because of the structure of meaning(s) this term abides in our culture. My point is simply that "Evangelical" is a helpful designation of a certain type of Protestant; Roman Catholics saying, "oh, but we're Evangelicals too" is not very helpful.

[Francis Beckwith]

"My point is simply that "Evangelical" is a helpful designation of a certain type of Protestant; Roman Catholics saying, "oh, but we're Evangelicals too" is not very helpful."

It is if you're me. I can't explain how I can love the liturgy, feel connected with the ancient church through the authority of the magistarium, continue to learn from J. P. Moreland, embrace the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, and still listen to Keith Green and the Second Chapter of Acts on my iPod. :-)

[Kevin]

Dr. Beckwith,

Perhaps "pietistic Catholic" or "evangelistic Catholic" or something like that -- what about "Protestant Catholic"? (just kidding). I'm just averse to saying "Evangelical" should map onto Roman Catholicism, when, in English, it is used as a pan-denominational term of conservative, revivalistic Protestantism with a distinct emphasis on the word over the sacraments. Otherwise, I do sympathize with you, just from another perspective -- as an Evangelical who gains much from the Catholic tradition (as any perusal of my blog, dogmatics.wordpress.com, will prove).

As for the Keith Green, you should really update :) Perhaps some David Crowder Band or Chris Tomlin.

[Mary]

Though the C.S. Lewis article takes an odd twist when it asserts

Unlike nearly all other influential thinkers and writers within Christian history, C. S. Lewis is not known for his reformation of or separation from the popular religious beliefs. Instead, he is known for defining, defending, and uniting the community of Christendom on what it "merely" (or in his own term "purely") is.

Nearly all influential thinkers and writers within Christian history have not been known for reforming or separating from popular religious beliefs. They have been known for refining, clarifying, and (in the best "faith seeking understanding" manner) justifying popular religious beliefs. When St. Augustine wrote his chapter in The City of God arguing that rape victims should not commit suicide, he was not condemning Christian women who had done this after the sack of Rome; he was defending and justifying Christian women who had not done this after the sack of Rome.

Or, to take another matter St. Augustine was involved in -- the doctrine of original sin. This did not arise to rebuke popular religious beliefs, but from the popular religious practice of baptizing infants.

[Carl E. Olson]

David Crowder Band

That's good stuff. And do check out Jeremy Casella.

[Kevin Davis]

Carl,

Thanks for the Jeremy Casella recommendation. I checked-out his MySpace Music page, and I enjoy it. I usually avoid any music self-labeled as "experimental," but he manages to retain a musical form throughout.

[Fr Don Malin]

If "Evangelical Catholic" is a term that means (in the tradition of Augustine) that one has appropriated the graces received in baptism in some conscious way, I am an Evangelical Catholic. But if it means that I am a so-called "Bible Christian," then I cannot be an Evangelical Catholic. The term is intriguing. One point that should be referenced: John Paul II said in one of his writings (my memory fails me here-but I paraphrase) that other ecclesial communities have charisms that we as Catholics can learn from and appropriate into our Catholicism, in order to reclaim some aspect of the fullness of the Church which has become less ephasized for whatever reason. It seems that this is like "bringing out the old with the new," to me.

[Mark Brumley]

So, what is Beckwith doing other than playing with semantics? What practicing Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox for that matter) isn't "evangelical" on his account?

Consider an analogous term: "orthodox Catholic". One might ask, "What praticing Roman Catholic isn't "orthodox"?

Most of us realize that there are plenty of people who are Catholics but who aren't orthodox Catholics. And yet there is a sense in which to be a Catholic is synomyous with being orthodox.

Similarly, to be a Catholic is to be "evangelical". And yet there are plenty of people who are Catholics who aren't "evangelical". So one might reasonably take pains to stress that one is an "evangelical" Catholic--one who sees the evangelical implication of the Catholic faith and strives to live according to it.

One step further, there are Catholics who are especially connected with Evangelical Protestantism by history in a way similar to how some Catholics are connected with Eastern Orthodoxy by history and who, whether as converts or as descendants of converts, live out their Catholic faith as, say, Byzantine Catholics. We don't have an established "Evangelical Catholicism" analogous to Eastern Catholicism, nor am I suggesting that we should. But I think people can see how one might use the term "Evangelical Catholic" to refer to a Catholic who as a result of his background has significant connections to and affinities with Evangelicalism, without being any less Catholic for it.

It seems to me that the last point is closely tied to one of the theological gifts of Vatican II--a deeper recognition of the legitimacy, even the necessity, of seeking Christian unity and of acknowledging the extent to which some unity already exists among Christians. The trick is to avoid indiffentism and other errors, while not rejecting the ecclesiology of communion.