sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bible church, Evangelicalism, Evangelical Catholic, Evangelical left, Francis Schaeffer, Hermann Volk

Changing American Evangelical Attitudes towards Roman Catholics: 1960-2000 Don Sweeting

Don Sweeting is Senior of Introduction summing up forty years of Cherry Creek Presbyterian , in In 1960, Presidential campaign historian since 1945, Bayly said, “We inherited a Englewood, Colorado. He has also Theodore H. White observed that “the Berlin Wall between evangelical Chris- served as the founding pastor of the largest and most important division in tians and Roman Catholics; we bequeath Chain of Lakes Community Church American society was that between Prot- a spirit of love and rapprochement on in Antioch, . Dr. Sweeting was estants and Catholics.”1 As a vital part of the basis of the Bible rather than fear and educated at , American Protestant life, evangelicalism hatred.”7 Lawrence , Oxford University reflected the strains of this conflict.2 Anti- By the mid 1990s, it was clear that atti- (M.A.), and Evangelical Divinity Catholicism, according to church historian tudes were changing. On a local level, School (Ph.D.) where he wrote his dis- , “was simply an unques- evangelicals and Catholics were meeting sertation on the relationship between tioned part of the fundamentalist- to discuss issues from poverty and wel- evangelicals and Roman Catholics. evangelicalism of the day.”3 fare reform to . On the national This posture of outright public hostil- level changes were also apparent. Evan- ity was evidenced in many ways. It could gelical publishing houses were printing be seen in the opposition of many evan- books by authors. Some evangeli- gelical leaders to the presidential candi- cal parachurch ministries began placing dacy of John F. Kennedy in 1960. It could Roman Catholics on their boards. Catho- be read in the missions textbooks used at lic masses were being conducted at an seminaries such as Fuller, which saw evangelical university. Evangelical schol- Catholicism, along with and ars held some key teaching posts at Notre , as one of the three massive Dame University. For the first time a world forces threatening .4 It was invited to give a could be heard in the founding documents seminar at InterVarsity’s Urbana Missions and speeches of the National Association conference. Moreover, key evangelical of Evangelicals.5 And it could be sensed leaders were having audiences with the in the opposition to appointing American pope. ambassadors to the Vatican. Yet nearly In 1994, these changes dramatically forty years later, due to various cultural, came to public attention with the publish- political and theological shifts, there has ing of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together been a significant change in the way many (ECT) statement—a document providing evangelicals perceive Roman Catholics.6 a rationale for evangelical and Catholic As early as 1985, Joseph Bayly, writing dialogue. Then in 1997, ECT was followed in Eternity magazine noticed that things up with another proclamation called The were changing. Writing on what the evan- Gift of (GOS), which announced gelical leaders of his generation were pass- that certain evangelicals and Catholics ing on to a new generation of leaders, and had come to a shared understanding of 20 salvation.8 Reformers believed that abandoned Such changes and claims are extraor- the pure of . The Reformers dinary when we consider the tortured responded with a call to —the doc- history between these two groups over the trine of by alone, and sola centuries, as well as the hostile climate scriptura—the supreme authority of Scrip- that existed just four decades ago. There ture. There were also protests against is a remarkable new openness between all the extra-biblical traditions of Rome many Catholics and evangelicals. The that obscured . ECT statement itself boasted of a new Early American colonialists from New spirit of “historic cooperation.” England to Virginia Anglicans Clearly, significant changes were feared Rome’s claim to political and spiri- taking place. Attitudes were changing. tual supremacy. These fears were present Whereas once many evangelicals thought in American right up to the mid of Catholics as theological and cultural 20th century. Furthermore, anti-Catholi- enemies, today, many evangelicals think cism was not an exclusively evangelical of Catholics as theological and cultural stance. Secularists, like John Dewey, and allies. mainline Protestants as represented by the Of course, the word “many” properly Christian Century, held similar sentiments. clarifies that not all evangelicals feel this American anti-Catholicism is complex way. and has taken various forms. Sometimes While some see these changes as a sign anti-Catholicism took a nativist . that evangelicalism is coming to maturity, Nativist anti-Catholicism feared the others see them as indicating serious theo- power-threatening influx of immigrants to logical compromise. Still others see it as a the . It reached its zenith in mixed blessing. However one assesses the 1920s and seemed to die out by the these changes, nearly all admit that things 1960s. Sometimes anti-Catholicism took have changed! patriotic forms. Patriotic anti-Catholicism This article will briefly examine the feared the universal claims of the pope. It roots of anti-Catholicism and the histori- suspected Rome for its antipathy to cal factors that led to this change in evan- democracy and American liberty and its gelical attitudes. It will not describe in any claims of ultimate authority in both the detail the differences of beliefs since many spiritual and temporal realms (Unam sanc- studies have already done this.9 Rather, it tum, 1302). Anti-Catholicism also took a will look at the shaping forces that have theological form. Theological anti- been at work—those events, movements, Catholicism focused on doctrinal objec- and influences that have brought us to tions to what Rome does and who Rome is. where we are at the beginning of a new century. Ten Shaping Forces that Have Altered the Landscape A Brief Consideration of the Roots Given the fact that the roots of this of the Conflict conflict are nearly 500 years old, what The roots of evangelical anti-Catholi- explains this shift in American evangeli- cism run very deep. They extend to the cal attitudes? What shaping forces have Protestant . At its core, the been at work to bring about a change in 21 attitude? There are at least ten that I would try had never elected a Catholic president. like to identify. Looking at them will help The last time one ran for office (Al Smith, us better understand ourselves and the 1928), he was decisively rejected. Kennedy context in which we do ministry in the himself brought things to a defining first decade of a new century. moment when he spoke to the Ministerial Association. It was an The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy event heavily covered by the media. In his In 1960, anti-Catholicism was not speech Kennedy said that he believed in merely an evangelical phenomenon. It an America “where the separation of was an American phenomenon. Both church and state is absolute—where no secularists and , both evan- Catholic prelate would tell the President gelicals and non-evangelical Protestants, how to act and no Protestant worried about the universal claims of would tell his parishioners how to vote.”11 Rome. The prospect of having a Roman He said should be a private Catholic president frightened many. For affair. He promised to uphold the First this John F. Kennedy’s candidacy Amendment’s guarantees of religious in the 1960 presidential election caused a liberty. In addition, he expressed his major controversy. opposition to the appointment of an Evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike ambassador to the Vatican and to the shared the that the Roman Catholic granting of aid to parochial schools. Church could never change. It would not The speech persuaded many. It embrace religious freedom, and it would emerged as the turning point of the elec- not renounce its universal claims over civil tion that led to Kennedy’s . A governments, let alone its attitude towards Catholic was in the White House, but he non-Catholics. On the Protestant spectrum, turned out to be a strong advocate of the voices ranging from separation of church and state. Some won- to Harold John Ockenga to Carl McIntire dered how seriously committed Kennedy expressed fear that electing Kennedy was to Catholicism. Others joked that he would be a terrible thing for our nation. seemed to “out Protestant the Protes- Opposition to Kennedy’s election also tants!” Still others mused that he was, by came from and the South- his stance, really the first Southern Bap- ern Baptist Convention. Donald Grey tist president of the United States! Barnhouse argued that his election would Kennedy’s election is significant be “perilous.” because it signaled the full acceptance of Catholics into American life. While The issue is simple. The Roman nativism was not dead in America, nativ- will not allow Kennedy the right to carry out his ist anti-Catholicism was on the ropes. Four own desires. They have made it years later, when Republican candidate unmistakably clear that Senator Barry Goldwater chose a Roman Catholic Kennedy must be a Roman Catholic first and a United States president as his vice presidential running mate, it second, where the interests of the was clear that anti-Catholicism was no 10 Church are concerned. longer an issue in American politics.

The debate over religion seemed to take central place in the campaign. Our coun- 22 Vatican II Perhaps most striking was its admission If the first nail in the coffin of political that “the American experience of religious anti-Catholicism was the 1960 Kennedy freedom is not only an advance in Church election, the second nail was Vatican II history: it is also an important break- (1962-1965). The Vatican council was through in government.”13 convened under Pope John XXIII for the This unambiguous affirmation of reli- purpose of aggiornamento or “up dating” gious liberty not only calmed many fears, the church so it would be more relevant but also silenced critics such as Paul to the present age. Whereas the last two Blanshard and others who said that the Catholic Councils, Trent (1545-63) and Catholic church was anti-freedom and Vatican I (1869-1870), took a defensive and believed in a policy of coercion.14 Even antagonistic stance toward , Christianity Today admitted that “no one Vatican II had a different spirit. Among can safely predict the possible extent of other things, the council called for a reform and renewal within the Roman revised , allowed the vernacular Church.”15 language in the , defined a new view Vatican II revealed several things about of calling for the , opened up the the Catholic church. It showed that it was church to inter-faith dialogue, revised its not a monolith. The ambiguity of some of view of non-Catholic Christians (they its rulings showed that a measure of dis- were identified as “separated brethren”), sent was tolerated within the church. It encouraged Bible based preaching, Catho- also showed that the church was capable lic Biblical scholarship, and Bible transla- of change. Those who said it could not tion in common languages. change, now modified their criticism to The most controversial ruling of the say that it might be able to change in some council was its Declaration of Religious Free- areas, but not its essential theological dom where it affirmed religious liberty as position. Vatican II offered a glimpse into a fundamental human right. This marked how the Catholic church changed, not a radical break from the former views, say, by renouncing previous papal statements, of the 1864 Syllabus of Errors, in which the but simply by adding new pronounce- church restated its right to be a temporal ments. Finally, the council made it clear power and use force, and argued against that many theological barriers still both religious freedom and the separation remained between evangelicals and of church and state. Vatican II, in contrast, Catholics. While nativistic and patriotic affirmed limited government and reli- anti-Catholicism were effectively silenced, gious freedom as the first human right. theological anti-Catholicism was not.

This Vatican declares that the The Cooperative of human person has a right to reli- gious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from In the 1940s and 1950s the ministry of coercion on the part of individuals Billy Graham gained a high profile in the or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in United States. Graham’s ministry, which matters religious no one is to be included reaching out to Catholics, has forced to act in a manner contrary greatly influenced the evangelical move- to his own beliefs.12 ment. He has been called the evangelical 23 “pope,” not only because he has preached know that it is not true. . . further, that you should give any credence the gospel to more people than anyone to the idea that Mr. Graham would else in history, but also because, more than ever turn over any decision card to anyone else, he has been a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church seems inconceivable.16 the evangelical movement. Part of Graham’s appeal, and we could Over time, the inconceivable took say part of the strength of the entire evan- place. While he did not modify his basic gelical movement, has been the simple message, he did modify his strategy. proclamation of the gospel. To his credit, Kennedy’s election prompted him not to Graham has been committed to reaching speak critically of Catholics. Cooperation people from all kinds of backgrounds— seemed to be a matter of evangelistic Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox, necessity when he visited Latin American and unchurched. In so doing, Graham, as nations where there was a small Protes- well as the evangelical movement, has not tant base. He was ready to work with only appealed to Catholics, but brought whomever was willing. The same could many crossovers from Catholicism into be said of his ministry in Communist evangelical churches. nations. Graham has often admitted that early Billy Graham’s Catholic strategy in his life he spoke against and did not evolved over time. Early on he called the cooperate with Roman Catholics. Coming Catholic in an area to acquaint him out of a Fundamentalist background that with his ministry and invite him to the took him from to the meetings. In his 1964 Florida Bible Institute to in the Crusade, he received an unprecedented Southern Baptist Convention to Wheaton endorsement by Cardinal Cushing. Then , he was not shy about speaking came invitations to sit on the platform. In out against Modernism, Romanism and 1977 at his University of Notre Dame Communism. Not only did Graham take Crusade he made an effort to tailor the a negative view of Catholics, they also invitation to his audience. Catholics were took a negative view of him! invited to make “commitments to ” By the late 1940’s Graham began to or to “reconfirm their ” as moderate his tone. He began to seek a opposed to his more typical appeal to broader sponsorship for his meetings. He make a “decision for Christ.”17 In 1978 he adopted a policy of not criticizing other had the opportunity to preach a full evan- religious groups. All this took place while gelistic in a Roman Catholic his associates were denying that any church in . In 1981 he met with the changes were taking place. Jerry Beven, newly elected pope, John Paul II. Early in Graham’s executive secretary wrote to the Reagan administration he recom- Fundamentalist critics saying: mended the President appoint a full U.S. ambassador to the Vatican (a move that You asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews deeply disappointed his fellow ). to cooperate in the evangelistic By the 1980s, Graham had adopted a meetings. Such a thought, even if the position of close and careful cooperation reporter did suggest it as having come from Mr. Graham, seems with Roman Catholic and Orthodox ridiculous to me. Surely you must churches. Graham’s cooperative evange- 24 lism and ecumenical outreach attempted The to exploit the common ground of “mere Long before anyone was talking about Christianity” with all denominational evangelicals and Catholics coming groups. When were set up in together (ECT), there was talk about Pen- American cities, an entire strategy to win tecostals and Catholics coming together. Catholic cooperation was set in motion. and what is sometimes He believed that blessing and sponsorship called “neo-Pentecostalism” (the Charis- by an archdiocese meant wide Catholic matic Movement) experienced phenom- participation. After a crusade, the archdio- enal worldwide growth from the 1960s on. cese was provided with names and The Charismatic Movement is often seen addresses of Catholics who responded. By as a “second wave” of Pentecostalism. It the late 1980s, Roman Catholics made up brought aspects of Pentecostalism to the the largest single religious group attend- mainline churches and helped give birth ing his citywide crusades. to the Catholic Charismatic renewal In pursuing “an of the gos- movement. By the mid-1970s, contact pel” Graham had many critics. Some, like between Catholics and Pentecostals Bob Jones, Sr., said he was “selling our increased. Focusing on a common experi- crowd down the river.” Other less strident ence of and the , voices, like those of Martin Lloyd-Jones Charismatics, at least initially, managed in Britain, and Carl F. H. Henry in the to avoid the doctrinal controversies of the United States, thought that Graham won past. They met not just for mass evange- Catholic endorsement at too great a listic gatherings but for mass praise and price. Graham and his defenders, who rallies, local fellowships, referred to the Catholic question as “the and formal dialogue. great controversy,” pointed to the fact that Catholics were beginning to realize that his basic message had not changed. the Pentecostal movement represented a Besides, they said, his cooperative evan- large and growing segment of worldwide gelism followed in the steps of Paul, Christianity. They were also concerned Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, and Moody. about strained relations between Catho- This pattern of cooperative evangelism lics and Pentecostals in . that Graham modeled was soon adopted Inspired by Vatican II and a quest for by other evangelical groups such as renewal, the International Roman Catho- Campus Crusade for Christ and Promise lic-Pentecostal Dialogue was officially Keepers. As ’s ministry went initiated in 1972 and continued through international, he invited Catholic partici- the 1990s. Initial contacts for this dialogue pation and cooperation. , began with David du Plessis, who had which was founded by a been an observer at Vatican II and who Catholic, set out the aim of full participa- became an unofficial ambassador-at-large tion with Catholics right from the start. for the Pentecostal Movement. They even amended their statement of In what set out to be a dialogue on faith so that it would be less offensive to , participants found they had Catholics. many surprising areas of agreement. They discovered what has been called “an ecumenism of Jesus” or “an ecumenism 25 of the Holy Spirit”—a unity born out strongest condemnation came from the of experience. Some of the Catholic Catholic church. The Southern Baptist Charismatics even referred to themselves Convention, for example, passed a reso- as “evangelical Catholics.” They spoke the lution in 1971, affirming a woman’s right language of evangelicals, saying that to have an abortion if giving birth posed salvation cannot be earned but is a free any physical or emotional dangers.19 gift, that there is only one mediator Christianity Today, on the other hand, came between and man—Jesus Christ, that out immediately and condemned the Roe the is not a repetition of Calvary v. Wade decision. The majority of evan- since Jesus died once for all. Some Catho- gelicals were not ready to act on this lic Charismatics were even boasting of issue. Through the efforts of the Christian their ability to affirm all the tenets of the Action Council and especially the influ- evangelical of 1974.18 ence of , things began to Of course, not all Catholic Charismatics change. were this evangelical. In fact, Catholic Schaeffer’s books and films highlighted evangelicals remain a small minority. the issue and argued for an evangelical Many Catholic Charismatics continue to co-belligerency. Co-belligerency for the adhere to Catholic doctrine, sacramental cause of is good. Schaeffer , and devotion to Mary. On- made a distinction between a co-belliger- going talks in the International Roman ent and an ally. Co-belligerency is tempo- Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue have also rary and focused at specific points. pointed out these disagreements (e.g., Schaeffer warned against allying with disagreements about the Bible, , groups that have a non-Christian base. But the Holy Spirit, the church, and Mary). he encouraged co-belligerency and criti- cized evangelicals for leaving the battle for Political Ecumenism of the 1980s human life to the Catholics.20 Schaeffer’s and 1990s influence on evangelical and Fundamen- Yet another factor that contributed to talist leaders was immense. He had a the changing of American evangelical major role in Jerry Falwell’s political attitudes was their re-entry into the awakening, which in turn prepared political arena. One consequence of the Falwell for his 1979 encounter with Catho- neo-evangelical call to forsake Fundamen- lic activist . That meeting laid talist isolationism and to “penetrate the the foundations for the . world for Christ” was the contact evan- Schaeffer’s co-belligerency arguments gelicals have with others in the political also influenced the leaders of Operation arena—including Catholics. The practical- Rescue. Moreover, religious freedom ities of local political involvement brought battles brought together Catholic and evangelicals on the Right and the Left to evangelical activists. In the mid-1970s the discover “an ecumenism of the trenches.” IRS and other government agencies had On the Right, the discovery was a series of run-ins with the Christian prompted by the Supreme Court’s 1973 School movement. Catholics and Roe v. Wade decision, which liberalized evangelicals joined together to fight them. abortion laws. When the court made its Then came a similar collaboration on reli- ruling, evangelicals were divided. The gious freedom in broadcasting in 1979. 26 Just as socially conservative Catholics did include several American evangelicals and evangelicals were getting together, along with British evangelicals, such as their socially liberal counterparts were and David Wells, who have had drawing strength from each other as well. extended ministries in the United States. From its inception, Sojourners, a prominent The unique focus of ERCDOM was voice of the , was draw- missions. The talks were undertaken to ing inspiration from Catholics such as reduce misunderstanding, bring to light Dorothy Day, Daniel Berrigan, and Gary areas in which major disagreements still Wills. In its early years, Sojourners maga- exist, and highlight common doctrinal zine often expressed surprise at discover- ground especially in light of their shared ing Catholic Christians in the midst of a concern for missions. While the dialogues social protest who were committed to confirmed consensus on areas such as a “orthodox Christianity.” , the Chalcedon based , there was editor of Sojourners, called it an “ecumen- no flinching from the trouble spots. Even ism of the soup kitchens and homeless though there was agreement on the shelters.” In recent years, the Call to necessity of revelation, the objectivity of Renewal movement led by Wallis and God’s truth, and the divine inspiration of others, has sought an even broader alli- the Bible, there were disagreements as to ance for biblical faith and spiritual poli- the nature of (i.e., Catho- tics that includes evangelicals, Catholics, lics echoed Vatican II’s assertion that and Mainline Protestants. and sacred Scripture form The net effect was that as the evangeli- the Word of God, while evangelicals cal Right and Left rediscovered the social pointed to the normativity, the primacy, implications of Christianity, both gained and the perspicuity of Scripture). Another a new-found appreciation for the depth flash point came in discussions on Mary. of Catholic thinking and social teaching Salvation was yet another controversial on public issues. This appreciation and topic. While both sides agreed that there common cause in the trenches forged a is one savior and one gospel, and that we wide-ranging political ecumenism. are saved by grace through Christ, they differed in their understanding of human Evangelical Dialogue nature and need. Catholics speak of a with Catholics weakened free will and are more optimis- ECT is often mistaken as the beginning tic about humanity’s ability to respond to of evangelical and Catholic dialogue. We the grace of God. Whereas evangelicals have already spoken of the Pentecostal place more emphasis on humanity’s dialogues. Before 1994, other dialogues inability to save itself and emphasize were taking place, such as the discussions justification by grace in Christ through between the World Evangelical Fellow- faith alone. ship and the Pontifical Council for Chris- ERCDOM ended with a discussion of tian Unity from 1988 to 1997. An even the possibility of common witness in light more significant discussion was the of the truths that unite us and the convic- Evangelical Roman Catholic Dialogue on tions that divide us. The talks agreed that Mission 1977-1984 (ERCDOM). Granted, there was much room for common wit- this was an international dialogue, but it ness in areas such as Bible translation, 27 publishing, media influence, community dous pressure on the culturally prominent service, emergency relief, development, mainline churches to accommodate to the justice issues, marriage, and family. In the spirit of the times. Consequently, many area of common worship, ERCDOM mainline churches changed their convic- encouraged evangelicals and Catholics to tions about key doctrines and altered their join in common prayer and Bible study. institutional structure. They often stopped But it admitted to the “major problems” speaking of the uniqueness of Christ. that arise in sharing communion. It also Emphasis in missions switched from an raised caution about common witness in interest in salvation to an exclusive inter- evangelism because “common evange- est in temporal liberation. As this was lism necessarily presupposes a common happening the mainline churches began commitment to the same gospel.” losing members. Theological liberalism ERCDOM said that outstanding differ- led to decreasing levels of commitment in ences make common witness in evange- the pew. Mainline churches constituted lism premature because “each side half of the Protestant churches in the 1950s regards the other’s view of the gospel as but have dropped to just a third of that defective.”21 number today. Millions have left for other options. The Radicalizing of the Mainline While the mainline churches were Churches and American Culture redefining themselves, evangelicals and Another influential force at work has Catholics began to notice what they had been the radicalizing of liberalism and the in common. When Rome was starting to decline of the mainline churches. As the reform itself toward the Bible, mainline old Protestant mainline churches became Protestantism was moving further away progressively more liberal, evangelicals from Scripture even to the extent of and Catholics discovered that they had demythologizing Jesus. We arrived at the more in common than they had previ- strange situation where a conservative ously thought. Baptist or conservative Presbyterian had During the 1960s, American political more in common with an Orthodox or a liberalism took a radical turn. The classi- Catholic Christian than with a liberal Bap- cal or traditional liberalism of the 1940s tist or a liberal Presbyterian! The ground and 1950s, which affirmed liberty within beneath our feet was heaving. the context of law, , religion and God, was abandoned. In its place came a The Broadening of Evangelicalism new relativistic liberalism that abandoned While the mainline was drifting Left, the old context. The twin thrusts of mod- evangelicalism did not remain static. As ern liberalism are radical the movement grew up and distanced and radical egalitarianism. The influence itself from its Fundamentalist roots, it of this new liberalism had a twofold broadened. The broadening of evangeli- effect. On the one hand, it led to a rever- calism made it more open to other move- sal of American values and a redefinition ments and traditions. In some cases this of deviancy. What was once considered openness is healthy and good. In other moral was redefined as immoral and vice cases it has caused a serious fraying at the versa. On the other hand, it put tremen- edges of what it means to be an evangeli- 28 cal. Commitment to previous theological In both of these examples, the broad- positions has weakened, and thus created ening of evangelicalism is evidenced by more tolerance for other . an exploration of our Reformation or pre- On the more positive side, this broad- Reformation past. This exploration often ening is seen in the spiritual formation involves a positive encounter with some movement. Spiritual formation is now the form of Catholic Christianity. rage in all the main evangelical institu- On the other hand, some of the broad- tions from Moody to Gordon Conwell. ening taking place among evangelicals The formation movement draws heavily has not been so positive. George Marsden on ancient—including Catholic—sources. has written about the broadening at Fuller It usually contends that in breaking from Seminary over the issue of biblical iner- the Catholic church, Protestants threw out rancy.22 Richard Quebedeaux and James a great deal of spiritual wisdom and Davison Hunter have written of the insight. Many evangelicals want to move liberalizing tendency among young beyond a head centered faith, or an activ- evangelicals.23 They have demonstrated ist faith, or even a feeling centered faith that increased openness has led to embrac- to something deeper. So they explore ing views previously associated with lib- the “inward journey” and study some of eral movements. David Wells has written the early , desert mothers, about both the increased theological illit- ancient martyrs, scholastics, and respon- eracy in evangelical churches and the sible Christian mystics. In so doing they declining passion for truth in evangelical discover some of treasures of ancient seminaries. He thinks that the evangeli- Christian spirituality through such mas- cal movement is losing its confessional ters as , Francis of dimensions.24 One could also cite the Assisi, Teresa of Avila, Brother Lawrence, movement of theologians calling them- and others. They adopt spiritual directors selves “post conservative evangelicals,” and disciplines. who seek to move away from classical Another example of positive broaden- Christian toward an “open view ing is seen in the area of worship. There is of God.”25 In these latter examples it is a new interest in learning from other easy to see how a significant broadening worship traditions that go beyond the of the evangelical movement not only contemporary. This “call to rediscover the makes it difficult to say what an evangeli- past” was first announced by the cal is, but also makes the contrasts with Call of 1978 when a group of evangelical Roman Catholicism less clear. scholars worried about the shallowness of an evangelicalism that ignored its histori- Evangelicals and Catholics cal, creedal, and confessional roots. In Together: ECT I and ECT II some ways the Alliance of Confessing The Evangelical and Catholics Together Evangelicals focuses on this same concern. statement, along with its follow-up state- The movement towards “convergence ment The Gift of Salvation, are sometimes worship” as articulated by Robert Webber conveniently referred to as ECT I and ECT appears to be gaining ground. Millennials II. These statements simply could not hunger for a worship that highlights mys- have been written in the 1950s or 1960s. tery, contemplation, and ancient roots. Together they serve both as an indicator 29 of our changing attitudes as well as an worst. Justification is listed as a common influencing factor themselves. agreement but in a way that reflects the ECT I put a name on what was already traditional Catholic understanding and happening. In many ways it was a ignores the Reformation qualifier “alone.” continuation of an existing dialogue. In 1997, further discussions among ERCDOM said that “every possible ECT participants issued in a new state- opportunity for common witness should ment called The Gift of Salvation, or ECT be taken except where conscience II. Acknowledging the short-comings of forbids.”26 In this sense, ECT was simply the first statement, the second statement taking up the mandate that ERCDOM attempted to deal with justification head handed them. on. ECT II claimed that both the Catho- Both ECT documents seek to persuade lics and evangelicals who met were in evangelicals and Catholics to “contend agreement “with what the Reformation together.” While ECT I includes some traditions have meant by justification by loaded theological statements that are left faith alone (sola fide).” intentionally vague, its burden seems to This in itself was a remarkable claim. be a call for a common Christian witness But once again it was not without ambi- in the public square. It emphasizes the guity. Catholic participants added that the church’s responsibility to proclaim the understanding of salvation affirmed in gospel and to stand for righteousness and ECT II “is not the understanding con- justice. Its main affirmation is that poli- demned by the Catholic church in the tics, law, and culture must be secured by sixteenth century.” In 1545, the Council moral truth. Moral truth is secured by of Trent said that justification is not an religious truth. And evangelicals and event but a process, that it takes place by Catholics must stand together to contend an infusion of grace and not by impu- for this in our culture. tation, that it was not forensic, but trans- ECT I was published in 1994. It was not formational, and that we can have no an official church document. But it did that we are justified until we are contain some amazing affirmations, in heaven. which elicited an intense reaction. Some ECT II participants, on the other hand, people welcomed ECT. Others flatly claimed to have agreed that justification denounced it. And some, like Kenneth was central to Scripture, that it was not Kantzer, wisely gave it mixed reviews: earned by or merit of our “[the ECT statement] rightly calls our own, that it is declaratory, that it is by faith attention to the importance of working alone, and that it brings to us an “an together for the good of our nation and assured hope for the eternal life prom- all of society.” But then he adds that ised.” ECT II went on to list issues left “unfortunately, it does not make . . . clear undiscussed (questions such as baptismal how important are the doctrinal differ- , sacramental grace, ques- ences that still divide Evangelicals and tions of imputation, , and indul- Roman Catholics.”27 gences). Critics of ECT II rightly point out As a cultural statement ECT had much that the interconnectedness of these issues to say. As a theological statement it was cannot be overlooked. ambiguous at best and misleading at It must be remembered that ECT II was 30 not an official accord but rather a good the context of the entire tradition and with faith effort between some Roman Catho- a deeper understanding of the Bible. Time lics and some evangelicals. Like ECT I, it will tell if the ECT discussions signal a did not claim to be a complete agreement Catholic shift or not. What ultimately but a significant first step. matters is whether the official teaching Did this step indicate that Rome was voice of Rome will make the same remark- moving away from its historic under- able affirmations. standing of justification? Some think so. Despite the shortcomings of ECT I and They point to the renaissance in Catholic II, these meetings got Catholics and theology over the last three decades, evangelicals talking about the very heart which seems to be moving towards a Ref- of the gospel. It was the first such dialogue ormation understanding of certain issues. of its kind between evangelicals and That is, there is a shift away from scholas- Catholics on American soil. This is a ticism and toward a more theocentric development that must be welcomed. outlook. They also point to the increased ECT also prompted a serious discus- recognition among Catholic Biblical schol- sion among evangelicals themselves. For ars of the forensic character and central- the truth is, many evangelical organiza- ity of justification.28 They point out that tions had been downplaying the signifi- some of the Catholic ECT II signers have cance of justification by faith alone. ECT been influenced by the Charismatic raised the profile of this very critical renewal and are more driven by Scripture doctrine. Evangelicalism tends to be than tradition. They also point to the 1999 minimalistic in its doctrinal affirmation. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justi- Evangelicals have not been explicit fication (JDDJ) between the Lutheran enough about justification. While it may World Federation and the Roman Catho- be an assumed belief, numerous evangeli- lic Church.29 Since we cannot expect cal parachurch organizations do not even everything to change at once, ECT defend- mention justification in their statements ers tell us, we ought to be patient and of faith, fewer still mention justification encourage any movement we see. by faith alone. And hardly anyone men- Others, however, think that Catholic tions imputation explicitly. Evangelical leaders who signed these statements may critics who blast ECT II signers for not be influenced more by contemporary being explicit enough have overlooked the models of doctrinal development. John fact that many of our key evangelical Henry Newman in the 19th century tried institutions, affirm no more and often to merge Protestant and Catholic ideas on much less than ECT I or II. If nothing else, justification to include both imputation ECT I and II revealed that evangelicals and infusion. Avery Dulles, a signer of have done a poor job of articulating a both ECT I and ECT II, that a doctrine so central as justification by faith theological concept can be illustrated by alone. the use of multiple models that are to be kept in tension with each other. Joseph Americanization, Ratzinger developed the idea of a herme- American Pluralism, and neutics of unity which involves reading the Postmodern Mood past dogma and historical statements in A final factor that may be shaping both 31 evangelical and Catholic attitudes is the as well. influence of Americanization, which con- As we enter the twenty-first century, it ditions us to adapt to plurality. American looks as if evangelicalism and Catholicism life can have a “homogenizing” effect on will be the two vital forces for Christian- evangelicals and Catholics. The more ity in the United States and the world. distanced we are from old European con- Their primary religious contender will be texts, the more of all theologi- . We now find ourselves in a post cal persuasions share in the values of our ideological world of a new century where own common culture. This shapes us in the West is terrorized by the forces of radi- many ways. It shapes us by its separation cal Islam, and most of Islam is fearful of of religion and state. It shapes us through the economically and militarily powerful the media. It shapes us through suburban- secular West. We also find Islam expand- ization—a force that disperses the old ing at such a rapid rate that it is the urban Catholic village and the old Prot- fastest growing religion in America. estant rural village and places us side by Amazingly, the age grows more religious, side. It also shapes us through the not less. Will the Islamic threat be another general postmodern mood with its disin- factor nudging evangelicals and Catholics terest in truth. While it would be very together? difficult to measure such influences, they Meanwhile, at the beginning of a new certainly have exercised an effect on both century, evangelicals find that we are Catholics and evangelicals and may have more open to Catholics than we were. The contributed to a softening of doctrinal neo-evangelical engagement with culture edges on each side. had some very distinct and unexpected consequences. We were forced to look Where This Leaves Us around at those next to us and find out The point of detailing all these histori- what motivated them to serve by our side. cal factors is not to suggest that it is inevi- Evangelicals of the 1960s generation table that Catholics and evangelicals will were wrong. The Roman Catholic Church come together anytime soon. Nor is it to has changed. But then so have we. The minimize the presence of other shaping Catholic Church became less isolationist. factors in our lives, such as the power It affirmed religious freedom. It started of the gospel, the truth of God’s Word, talking about evangelism. It opened the and the on-going influence of the Refor- door to a new emphasis on the Bible. mation. Rather, it is to help us understand Evangelicals became less nativist. They what has been quietly molding our own began learning from other traditions. They convictions. welcomed co-belligerents in the fight for Each of these historical factors have a God-honoring cause. Evangelicals dis- influenced the evangelical mind to some covered that we have more in common degree during the last forty years. Love with Catholics than we realized. But we them or hate them, they have all played a also learned that there are still significant part in nudging us away from a hostile disagreements that divide us. While we disposition and towards at least minimal rejoice in we can have with cooperation. In the days ahead, there may born again Catholics, we still long for the in fact be other shaping forces that do this day when the teaching office of the Catho- 32 lic church unambiguously affirms the very gelicals,” 17, 38, 61. Also see “Evangeli- heart of the gospel message, and bows cal Action: A Report of the Organization before the supreme authority of the Scrip- of the National Association of Evan- tures. gelicals for United Action,” 26. 66American Roman Catholicism is part of ENDNOTES a worldwide religious body represent- 11Theodore H. White, The Making of the ing all churches in union with the Bishop President (New York: Atheneum House, of Rome. It asserts equal devotion to 1961) 271. Scripture and tradition. There are some 22Evangelicalism is a post-Fundamental- 60 million Roman Catholics in the ist renewal movement that includes but United States, making it the largest reli- is not confined to denominations among gious denomination in the nation. While Protestant churches. It attempted to it is united by a clear structural unity, it avoid the weaknesses of both modern- is also a complex, diverse body. Its ism and . Theologically, diversity is seen in the ethnic make up evangelicalism has emphasized the good of Catholicism (, Irish, Polish, news of God’s grace through faith in the Italian, etc.). It can also be seen in the of Jesus Christ, it holds to various Catholic subcultures (tradi- all of the most basic doctrines of the Bible tional, liberal, charismatic, centrist, and as summarized in its historic confes- evangelical Catholics). For a fuller sions, and it recognizes the Bible as the description of these terms, as well as final authoritative source for all doctrine. other details in this article, see Donald Yet in saying this, the wide diversity of W. Sweeting, From Conflict to Coopera- the evangelical movement must be kept tion? Changing American Evangelical in mind (varieties include: Fundamen- Attitudes Towards Roman Catholics: 1960- talist, Dispensational, Independent, 1998 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Reformed, Anabaptist, Wesleyan, Pente- Services, 1998). costal, Charismatic, Radical, African 77Joseph Bayly, “The End of an Era,” Eter- American, and Mainline evangelicals). nity, 1985, 79. Estimates for evangelicals in the United 88Charles Colson and Richard John States range from 30-66 million. Neuhaus, eds., Evangelicals and Catholics 33George M. Marsden, Reforming Funda- Together: Towards a Common Mission (Dal- mentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New las: Word, 1995). The Gift of Salvation Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerd- statement was released on 12 November mans, 1987), 84. 1997 by the Institute for Religion and 44Harold Lindsell, A Public Life. It was printed in Christianity of Missions (Wheaton: Van Kampen, Today on 8 December 1997. It also 1949) 54, 77, 223. appeared in in January 1998. 55Joel Carpenter, ed., A New Coalition: Early 99See e.g., and Ralph Documents of the National Association of MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evan- Evangelicals (New York: Garland, 1988) gelicals: Agreements and Differences 38; United We Stand, May 3-6, 1943, “A (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Report of the Constitutional Convention 10Donald Grey Barnhouse, “The Peril Over of the National Association of Evan- the Presidency,” Eternity, October 1960, 8. 33 11White, 437. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Lutherans and Catholics, other 12Walter M. Abbot, ed. The Documents Generation (Chicago: University of Lutherans view it as an ambiguous of Vatican II (New York: Guild, 1966) Chicago Press, 1987). statement that carefully avoids pre- 278, 279. 24David Wells, No Place For Truth cise definition and truth 13Ibid., 699. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) on the alter of unity. See the website 14Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and God in the Wasteland (Grand of the Lutheran Church Missouri and Catholic Power (: The Bea- Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). Synod (www.lcms.org/president/ con Press, 1950) 3. 25Roger E. Olson, “Post-conservative statements). 15Klass Runia, “Evangelicals in the evangelicals greet the postmodern Church of Rome,” Christianity Today, age,” Christian Century, 3 May 1995, 18 March 1966, 22. 480, and Millard J. Erickson, The 16John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II Evangelical Left: Encountering Post- (Painesville, OH: Here I Stand conservative Books, 1992), 35. Also, original Gra- (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997). ham Association-Ketcham corre- 26Meeking and Stott, 91. spondence was forwarded to me by 27Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Should Roman the author. Catholics and Evangelicals Join 17William Martin, A Prophet With Ranks?,” Christianity Today, 18 July Honor: The Billy Graham Story (New 1994, 17. York: William Morrow, 1991) 461. 28Works cited include: Joseph A. 18What is an ? Fitzmyer, Romans (New York: 1992 : Archdiocese of Dublin Double Day, 1993) 117-118; W. H. (www.dublindiocese.ie; also see van der Pol, Karkteristiek van het www.evangelicalcatholic.com). See reformatorische (Roer- also Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical mond, 1952) 348; Hermann Volk, Catholics (Nashville: Thomas Nel- “Imputationsgerechtigkeit,” Lexikon son, 1990). fur Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed. 19It was not until 1980 that the SBC (Freiburg: Herder, 1960) 4:641-42; K. reversed its stance on the abortion Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. issue. Studien zur Struktur und zum 20Francis Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto Bedeutungsgehalt des Paulinischen (Wheaton: Crossway, 1981) 68. Rechtfertigungsbegriffs (Munster: 21Basil Meeking and John Stott, eds., Aschendorf, 1971) 286, 295-306; Otto The Evangelical Roman Catholic Dia- Hermann Pesch, Gerechtfertigt aus logue on Mission 1977-1984 (Grand Glauben: Luthers Frage an die Kirche Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 88, 89. (Freiburg: Herder, 1982); and 22See George Marsden, Reforming George Tavard, Justification: An Ecu- Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: menical Study (New York: Paulis, Eerdmans, 1987). 1983). 23Richard Quebedeaux, The Young 29The JDDJ is the result of decades Evangelicals (New York: Harper and of Lutheran-Roman Catholic dia- Row, 1974), and The Worldly logue. While some hail it as a “mag- Evangelicals (New York: Harper and nificent breakthrough,” resolving Row, 1978). See also James Davison the long-standing division between 34 35