On the Main Christian Camps

How to decide which ones are to be preferred:

Anyone familiar with this site knows that I seek to avoid sectarian warfare. That is not because I think the differences between the big three (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) do not matter. They do, and it is clear which camp I belong to. See this piece for example: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/06/17/defence-protestantism-response-catholic-friends/

But with zillions of sites and groups and books and magazines and podcasts all defending their own turf, I try to avoid rehashing all those debates and fights. I usually seek to affirm mere Christianity – to use the phrase of Lewis – or simply promote Nicene Christianity: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2022/01/07/im-a-nicene-christian/

However, now and then I will refer to some new article or book that I find to be quite useful. Here I will briefly look at Gavin Ortlund’s What It Means to Be Protestant (Zondervan, 2024). While it is similar to others in that it has chapters on the usual issues (the matter of authority, Sola Scriptura, the Papacy, Mary, and so on), it is different due to its very irenic and even-handed approach.

Ortlund begins by saying that he had not set out to write such a book, but extensive online discussions with members of all three tribes convinced him to head down that path. He says that after extensive and in-depth interactions with others, and reading their own sources, he has become even more convinced that his Protestantism is worth defending. As he says in the Introduction:

“I maintain that the Protestant Reformation represented a genuine recovery of multiple biblical and apostolic truths. I do not maintain that these various non-Protestant traditions have entirely lost the gospel, but I do believe, with conviction, that the gospel has been both obscured and added on to in them.”

And he says this: “My heart aches for Protestants to understand the riches of their own tradition – especially before they consider leaving it.” But he is not bashing the other camps:

In various videos, I have expressed my appreciation for the wealth of Roman Catholic scholarship and learning, for example, or my admiration for the rich tradition of prayer and spirituality in many Eastern traditions. I could give many other examples of areas of appreciation as well. Hopefully it is clear that my motive behind this book is not personal animus against anyone. Instead, I write from my sincere conviction before God concerning the truth about our theological differences. These differences are important. They matter profoundly—to the gospel, to the church, and to our mission in this world. We must not and cannot shrug them off as irrelevant or avoid them out of a desire to maintain a superficial “unity.” We should pray for unity, to be sure, but never at the cost of glossing over important differences concerning the truth.

Consider just two particular issues as found in the book’s second and eleventh chapters. Various institutional church bodies claim to be the exclusive and only church. Ortlund seeks to show how Protestants can differ on this way of thinking:

The major Christian traditions outside of Protestantism—Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East—all claim to be the “one true church.” Each of these churches sees itself, to the exclusion of the others, as the original church Christ founded. There are variations in how this is articulated and what implications are drawn from it (for example, which church will consider other churches to have valid sacraments, how Christians in other churches can be saved, and more), but the core idea of institutional exclusivism—that the real church is Christ is restricted to one visible, institutional church with its own unique hierarchical structure—permeates all of them. The highly institutional character of each of these churches developed in large measure in the context of union with the Roman (and later Byzantine) Empire, starting in the fourth century.

 

Protestantism represents a different approach to discerning the true church. It is not that Protestants deny that the church is visible. This is a common misunderstanding. Historically, Protestants have distinguished between the visible and invisible church, drawing from St. Augustine—but this distinction does not entail a denial of the visible church. It is simply a distinction, making a modest point: We can count the number of baptized Christians (the visible church), but only God knows who is truly united to Christ (the invisible church).

The matter of icon veneration, which is big in the Roman Catholic camp, but especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, is covered in a lengthy and carefully argued piece. I have written on this in the past and hope to do more on it: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2019/04/28/on-iconoclasm-part-one/

As I say, most of the usual sticking points that divide the main camps are addressed here. Those familiar with the debates that have been going on for such a long time now will recognise much familiar terrain. But the emphasis Ortlund presents throughout of respecting others and truly seeking to understand where they are coming from is why this is such a helpful volume. As he also stated in the Introduction:

In my interactions with other Christian traditions through my YouTube ministry, I have frequently reflected on what I regard as the great theme in Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird: the unmaking of prejudice. Constantly in my process of engaging in non-Protestant views I have thought of Atticus Finch’s profound advice to his daughter:

 

“If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

 

I believe many (though not all) of the divisions within Christendom result from—or at least are exacerbated by—a failure to employ Atticus’s counsel in this passage. There is much prejudice, much pride, much caricature, much tribalism, much aloofness, much unwarranted enmity and distance. None of us are totally above this, so we must seek to listen patiently and really hear what the other side is saying. It is a mark of intellectual maturity to lower our guard and sympathetically consider how another person’s position makes sense to them. Healthy, God-honoring disagreement, however vigorous, cannot bypass this initial step.

 

In this vein, I have done everything I can to describe opposing views accurately. I also want to articulate my deep love for my non-Protestant Christian friends at a personal level and my respect for these other traditions at both an intellectual and aesthetic level. The approach I seek in this book and in my YouTube ministry is to encourage candid and robust argumentation about our differences, downplaying or minimizing nothing, while at the same time seeking to maintain a conciliatory relationship.

It is this gracious, humble and charitable spirit that makes this book different from so many others that discuss and debate such matters. Let me speak to it a bit further. In his Conclusion he says this:

Protestantism in its contemporary expressions has many imperfections and weaknesses. One of them, particularly in my context in the United States, is the frequent (though not universal) historical shallowness, as well as the general lack of sacramental, liturgical, and aesthetic richness. These are areas where Protestants have often drifted and must humbly listen and improve – including by learning from the non-Protestant traditions.

 

The great, shining glory of Protestantism – that which stands out above all else, perhaps – is its radical focus on the simplicity of the gospel. Protestantism is relentlessly and structurally focused on the all-sufficiency of the person and work of Christ himself. The non-Protestant traditions may share this value in principle. But we worry that they have inadvertently added requirements on to the gospel that Christ himself would not require.

He finishes by “giving some pastoral advice to the person struggling with their ecclesial placement and considering making a change”:

First, take your time. The issues that separate the different Christian traditions are complicated. There is no way to arrive at an adequate understanding of the major differences in a few weeks or months. It takes study, reflection, prayer, and a deeply existential investment in the search for truth – and there are no shortcuts for this process….

 

Second, read and engage the best of each tradition. It is easy, especially in the context of a change, to study the professional theologians of another tradition while relying on your anecdotal experiences in your own tradition. . . . We must be careful not to assume that we understand the best arguments for a particular tradition just because we grew up in it….

 

Third, avoid triumphalism. The issues that divide different Christian traditions are not simple. Intelligent, sincere people disagree about them. If you think you can defeat the other side in ten seconds, you probably haven’t fully understood their position. Unfortunately, each tradition has various spokespeople and advocates who will portray the differences as though all the intelligent and good people are (obviously!) on their side. It is best not to listen too much to those voices, or at least to balance them out with other voices that more accurately reflect the truth….

 

Finally, and most importantly, remember that the most important parts of the process are prayer and simple trust in God. While it is important to study each side, that is not usually where peace and certainty issue forth. Rather, peace usually comes in a more existential way – through a full-blooded commitment to seeking truth.

This is all solid, helpful, and wise advice. And by the way, it also can be used in various intra-Protestant debates. As a case in point, those who either love or hate Calvinism often are not really up on what the other side actually believes. Plenty of critics of the Reformed tradition have never read Calvin’s Institutes for example. So they take pot-shots at straw men and engage in red herrings and so on.

As a last word, repeating what I said at the beginning: I happen to be an evangelical Protestant, and I am likely to stay that way. But I have entire bookshelves full of works from Orthodox and Catholic writers. And as I said, I prefer NOT to engage in rabid sectarianism on these pages.

So if you are ready to denounce me as the antichrist or are ready to go to war with me over anything I have said, my advice is to just take a chill pill and save your pugilism for somewhere else. OK?

[1750 words]