On Gregg Allison’s “Roman Catholicism: An Evangelical Assessment”: Responding to Objections on “Exactly What is Evangelicalism?”

I’m continuing my walk through Gregg Allison’s work,“Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”. Throughout, Allison’s method is to show side-by side, the Roman Catholic beliefs, along with what an “Evangelical Assessment” of those beliefs might say. And he does it in the light of a methodology that he clearly articulates at the beginning.

Several individuals have taken issue with one aspect of his treatment: the fact that he identifies “Evangelical Theology” as the interlocutor in his discussion of Roman Catholicism. I’ll admit, I find this to be somewhat unusual at one level. There might be better ways of identifying himself (I won’t speculate).

But on the other hand, he is following the method first articulated by Leonard De Chirico in his work “Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism”.

Before I get to De Chirico’s and Allison’s overviews of “Evangelical Theology”, I’d like to look first at a couple of specific objections.

One writer (Ted Bigelow on an earlier Facebook post of mine) suggested that Allison was being “dishonest”: “He just isn't being honest as to its source. The source of his doctrine, or his ‘pou sto’ isn't evangelicalism.”

Thomas Howard asks “how do you think the Reformation ought to be commemorated in 2017?”

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/13/protestant-reformation-approaching-500/

Howard was a convert in 1984, before the rest of the “Catholic Convert” industry happened. He writes now:

Several years ago I came across the then Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan’s notion that the Reformation is best remembered as a “tragic necessity.” Pelikan elaborated:

The tragedy of the Reformation consists in the loss by both sides of the some of the very things each claimed to be defending against the other; its final outcome was not what Rome or the reformers had wanted. Yet the necessity of the Reformation consists in the loyalty of the reformers to the best and highest in Roman Catholic Christianity and their obligation to summon Rome back to it. Partisans on both sides have difficulty acknowledging the Reformation was indeed a tragic necessity. Roman Catholics agree that it was tragic, because it separated many millions from the true church; but they cannot see that it was really necessary. Protestants agree that it was necessary, because the Roman church was so corrupt; but they cannot see that it was such a tragedy after all. . . . [Whatever the case] an honest assessment of the Reformation belongs to any . . . effort at meeting the present situation between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Let me suggest that, as the Reformation quincentennial approaches, Catholics ought to try to think about why so many, then and now, felt the necessity of the Reformation. Conversely, Protestants ought to consider why Catholics, then and now, have perceived it as tragic. That might not answer all questions, mend all divisions. But it might not be a bad place to start.

My response:

We should remember that if the Reformation was a “tragic” necessity, the tragedy was caused by Rome. That’s the first thing that needs to be recognized. There was tragedy before the first Protestant. Centuries-worth of tragedy.

In that vein, the Reformation was, as Philip Schaff said, “the turning point of modern history”.

Schaff said: http://bit.ly/13gbCgP

The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history. It marks the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times. Starting from religion, it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization.

I think we ought to begin by considering whether Schaff or Pelikan was more correct.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/reformation-season.html