Protestantism and tradition

A recent article in Christianity Today by Andrew Voigt explores the question of what is driving the recent, high-profile converts to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. From Richard John Neuhaus to Francis Beckwith to J.D. Vance, we have seen many converts to Roman Catholicism. Others, such as Rod Dreher, have gone over to Eastern Orthodoxy. Large numbers of evangelical college students have taken the Canterbury Trail to Anglicanism. All seem drawn to tradition. Why?

I would suggest that one reason for this exodus from evangelicalism is the fact that many evangelicals do not understand the finer points of their theology and therefore do not understand the differences between Protestant and Roman doctrine. For about a century now, the trend has been away from the historic Lutheran and Reformed denominations to independent Bible churches and less-confessional denominations.

Some of these churches tend to eschew long confessions of faith, such as the ones produced by the heirs of the Reformers in the 17th century, and hold instead to shorter, less-detailed, and more ambiguously worded “statements of faith.” Many evangelical parachurch organizations reflect the doctrinal minimalism of the movement. For example, compare the InterVarsity Press statement of faith to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The point here is not necessarily to argue for every jot and tittle of the Westminster Confession but merely to point out the vast difference between the doctrinal seriousness of historic Protestantism and the doctrinal minimalism of contemporary evangelicalism.

This doctrinal minimalism is rooted in the assumption made by the fundamentalists who opposed theological liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, namely, that so long as we have a high view of Biblical inerrancy and affirm the “fundamentals”—such as the virgin birth, atoning death and bodily resurrection of Christ—all will be well. But a century later, we see growing theological confusion and ignorance about basic Protestant doctrine within evangelicalism. Evangelicals with only a tenuous grasp of basic Protestant doctrines like justification by faith are vulnerable to arguments based on ecclesiastical style rather than theological substance.

This does not mean that the perception that evangelicalism is rootless is totally without merit. Many thoughtful evangelicals perceive themselves as disconnected from the ancient traditions of Christianity. As modern, Western culture becomes increasingly post-Christian, they feel rootless and homeless. Personally, I am very sympathetic to these concerns.

This understandable quest for roots, however, often drives them to traditions such as the Anglican, Roman, and Orthodox that emphasize historical connections that appear to value tradition. But whether the current Church of England or the Episcopal Church in the United States actually values historic Christianity or not, of course, is another question. But superficially, the outward symbols of robes, collars, buildings that look like churches, and the observance of the Christian calendar signal a comforting connection to ancient traditions in a world of liquid modernity.

The irony is that Rome has introduced many doctrinal innovations during the last 500 years that are not rooted in Scripture and the Church fathers. These include Roman distinctives such as papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas. Mainline Anglican bodies in the West, of course, have almost totally succumbed to the zeitgeist by embracing women’s ordination, homosexuality, and a Marxist critique of society. This has prompted a split in world Anglicanism and severely damaged its reputation as a faithful continuation of the apostolic tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy has fared somewhat better as far as accommodating to modernity is concerned, but it lacks the doctrinal clarity on salvation by grace alone through faith alone that was the hallmark of the Protestant Reformation. This was driven home to me when on a recent trip to Greece, our Greek Orthodox guide explained to us that all Christians agree that if we sincerely try to do our best, God accepts us. As the group’s leader, I had to deal with some highly scandalized group members!

Megachurches in warehouselike buildings, theatre-style stages dominated by band instruments and microphones, and preachers in open-collared shirts sitting on stools talking informally were all supposed to make people comfortable. This was supposed to attract people by removing barriers. But it turns out that too much accommodation to secular modernity can be a barrier, too. It creates a restless longing for a lost experience of the holy. It makes going to church seem like just another consumer-driven activity. The words may still be Christian, but the symbolism is all post-Christian secularism.

Maybe the answer is to reject both forms of cultural accommodation, that is, avoid both doctrinal and symbolic accommodation. Maybe our worship should be as weird as our beliefs. We might find, paradoxically, that weird is oddly appealing to the jaded children of late modernity.