Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome
Pastor Dale Morgan
A Biblically based commentary on current issues that impact you
*
Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome*
The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle
By Bob DeWaay
The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about
evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to
find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was
that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT
claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the
editor, "While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical
imagination for some time, it hasn't been until recently that it's
become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for
the good."2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the
trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led
by such persons as "Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and
practicing monks and nuns," that therefore, "they are receiving good
guidance on this road from wise teachers." This he claims shows that,
"Christ is guiding the process."3
Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura
(scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings
and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected
on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient
Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the
normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this
article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the
principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.
New "Reformations" Compromise Sola Scriptura
Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be
new "reformations." If we examine them closely we will find evidence
that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not
formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the
repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the
repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That's where
we'll begin.
Robert Schuller and Rick Warren
In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the
publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller
issued this fervent call: "Without a new theological reformation, the
Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive."5 He
was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than
the original: "Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our
focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and
practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right
of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never
succeed until it satisfies the human being's hunger for self-value."6
The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on
psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of
the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation
principle of Scripture alone.
For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine
of sin: "Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin
is a lack of self-esteem."7 But Schuller does not discuss the many
verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: "Everyone who
practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (1John
3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller's reformation constituted the
abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8
In one sense, since Schuller's call for a reformation based on
self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never
happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught
by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the
church. In another sense, however, Schuller's reformation was broadened
and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as
noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles
Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels
himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his
ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller's influence on his
theology, he has carried forward Schuller's idea of creating a church
that meets people's felt needs and thus attracts them.
But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another
reformation:
And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box,
business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people,
volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point –
when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, "Find the man of
peace." And he said, "When you find the man of peace you start working
with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If
they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next
village." Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman
of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're
influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a
Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them
to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second
Reformation.10
The problem is that solving the world's five greatest problems as Warren
defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion,
cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the
formal principle in Warren's theology, then he would provide vigorous,
Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the
authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not
characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.
As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren's
reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These
include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the
meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human
wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical
philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the
authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most
evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not
overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13
There is reason to believe that Warren's reformation is the continuation
of Schuller's in a modified form. Warren has made finding one's purpose
the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be
identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first
cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.
C. Peter Wagner
Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner's New
Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner
sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the
key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks
approvingly of the "apostles" of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and
the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as
little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian
group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto
repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little
or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to
adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to
judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would
immediately come to an end.
The Emergent Church
The third (if we count Warren's reformation as a current replacement for
Schuller's) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In
their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the
previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that
Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern
theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity
that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that
characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of
their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic
theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example,
defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being
systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new
book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.
The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of
foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative
merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on
the need for a foundation for one's theology. Either one started with
evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the
foundation of one's theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the
inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their
supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a
non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead "modernity."
The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is "we cannot know, we cannot
know, we cannot know." Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of
arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola
scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is
characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised
sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few
voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today's proposed trip back
to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been
rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious
traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with
the longest history?
Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome
The cover of the CT article reads, "Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church."
It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are
these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are
mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this
process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he
himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the
rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches
following it are failures. He writes, "All pleasing and doctrinally
sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual
renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose
fault was this failure?"16 The "failure," according to Willard is that,
". . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these
faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human
personality, as embodied, incarnate."17 So what does this mean? It means
that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.
The remedy for "failure" says Willard is to find practices in church
history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the
Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from
silence, based on the phrase "exercise unto godliness" in 1Timothy 4:7.
Here is Willard's interpretation:
"Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a
precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms,
carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was
the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day,
that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the
spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind."18
But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard's
theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to
inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians
need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were
never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.
Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human
potential through tapping into spiritual powers: "It is the amazing
extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must
consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to
transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of
course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known."19 So evidently our
spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed
by God in the Bible.
If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that
we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is
Willard's solution: "Practicing a range of activities that have proven
track records across the centuries will keep us from erring."20 This, of
course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries
experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical
justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them
in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the
wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.
Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the
most important disciplines. He says, "This factual priority of solitude
is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into
interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is
all but impossible to grow in grace as one should."21 If it is
impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of
this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard's mind sola scriptura is a
false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important
way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even
while admitting that it is dangerous:
But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks.
In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and
conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others.
Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] "Solitude is a terrible trial, for it
serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial
securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry
within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted."22
This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came
under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose
practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn't we be
better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?
Spirituality for the Unconverted
The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic
Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative
techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not
even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went
to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for
those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman
Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans
were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those
pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order
to find the things of God.
But why are literate American Christians running away from sola
scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using
computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering
my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack
of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the
unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like "newborn babes who long for
the pure milk of the word" (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received
saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are
unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But
with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from
Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification
because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their
starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made
processes to engineer change through human works because they have
nothing else.
Those who feel empty because of the "pragmatic promises of the
church-growth movement" as the CT article calls them, may need something
far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may
very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of
the Spirit will find that this passage is true: "His divine power has
granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the
true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence"
(2Peter 1:3).
Conclusion
Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to
Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a
situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The
Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their
reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The
key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the
invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was
offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in
heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the
throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out
that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: "But you have
come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church
of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of
all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the
mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks
better than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things
are invisible.
But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: "Now faith
is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
(Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is
unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have
faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you
can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the
Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the
Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a
real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to
speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews
are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace
when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals
to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?
I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of
rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my
Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.
Issue 105 - March / April 2008
End Notes
1. Chris Armstong, "The Future lies in the Past" in Christianity Today,
February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong's article here:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay
2. Mark Galli, "Ancient-Future People" in Christianity Today February
2008, 7.
3. Armstrong, 24.
4. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982).
5. Ibid. 25.
6. Ibid. 38.
7. Ibid. 98.
8. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller's self-esteem
reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future,
(Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of
Schuller's influence.
9. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed
8/27/2005]
10. The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty,
disease, and ignorance.
11. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven
Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006).
12. My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal
principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important
religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not
accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at
hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that
beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to
be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the
teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren's practice belies his
statement of faith.
13. http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm
14. I critique Dallas Willard's theology as taught in his popular book
The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91:
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm
15. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God
Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18.
16. Ibid. emphasis his.
17. Ibid. 95.
18. Ibid. 62.
19. Ibid. 158.
20. Ibid. 162.
21. Ibid. 161.
Published by Twin City Fellowship