The term evangelical catholic suggests a certain approach to Christian faith that attempts to be both gospel-centred and rooted in the historic tradition of the church. On the one hand, it may refer to Catholics who are keen to maintain a focus on the task of the proclamation of the gospel. On the other hand, it may refer to protestants who want to recover a stress on the importance of tradition in shaping the claims of Christian faith.
One way to find out what contemporary evangelical catholicism is about would be to look at the work of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, and its journal, Pro Ecclesia. This centre was founded by Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, two Lutheran scholars who have attempted to emphasize “the catholicity of the Reformation.” Among their basic convictions is the claim that “The Reformers did not set out to create a new church. They aimed to reform a church that lived in continuity with the church the Creed calls “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”” (The Catholicity of the Reformation, vii).
They would be keen to argue that, although many protestant groups have shun the term “catholic,” there have always been evangelical catholic movements within the protestant churches. As they state on the CCET website, their goal is “theology that is catholic and evangelical, obedient to Holy Scripture and committed to the dogmatic, liturgical, ethical and institutional continuity of the Church.”
The idea of “evangelical catholicity,” however, is not limited to a small group of scholars associated with this particular centre and its journal. The late Donald Bloesch, who leaned slightly more towards the evangelical side of the spectrum than many who would identify themselves with evangelical catholicism today, nevertheless shared similar convictions. His two volume Essentials of Evangelical Theology concludes with a section entitled “Toward a Catholic Evangelicalism,” which argues:
In constructing a fresh theology for our day, we need to regain continuity with the historical roots of the faith as well as renew our fidelity to the biblical and evangelical witness. This means an opening to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as new appreciation for the Reformation and the post-Reformation movements of spiritual purification, Pietism and Puritanism…The theological options today are liberalism or modernism (whether in the guise of neo-Protestantism or neo-Catholicism), a reactionary evangelicalism or fundamentalism, and a catholic evangelicalism, which alone is truly evangelical and biblical (Essentials of Evangelical Theology, vol. 2: 283).
Bloesch was writing in 1979. But fifteen years before that, Albert Outler was using these two adjectives together as a way of describing John Wesley’s distinctive theological voice, and recommending it for our consideration as a viable option for today.
Outler describes Wesley as
…one who had glimpsed the underlying unity of Christian truth in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions and who had turned this recognition to the services of a great popular religious reform and renewal. In the name of a Christianity both Biblical and patristic, he managed to transcend the stark doctrinal disjunctions which had spilled so much ink and blood since Augsburg and Trent. In their stead, he proceeded to develop a theological fusion of faith and good works, Scripture and tradition, revelation and reason, God’s sovereignty and human freedom, universal redemption and conditional election, Christian liberty and an ordered polity, the assurance of pardon and the risks of “falling from grace,” original sin and Chrisitian perfection. In each of these conjunctions, as he insisted almost tediously, the initiative is with God, the response with man.
One might apply a faintly fuzzy label to this distinctive doctrinal perspective: evangelical catholicism. Its most important immediate source in Wesley’s thought was the Anglican theological literature in which he had steeped himself at Oxford and in Georgia. Its deeper wellspring was the Bible and its interpretation by the ancient Fathers of the Church. From his great mentors in piety (Jeremy Taylor, Thomas a Kempis, William Law, Henry Scougal) he learned that faith is either in dead earnest or just dead. From the great scholars of the seventeenth-century revival of patristic studies (William Beveridge, Robert Nelson) he learned the intimate correlation of Christian doctrine and Christian spirituality. From the “latitudinarians” (Edward Stillingfleet, Gilbert Burnet) he learned that the church’s polity is more validly measured by its efficacy that its rigid, dogmatic “purity.” To all these shaping forces he added the decisive influence of his own sustained immersion in the piety and wisdom of the early Christian fathers: Ignatius, Clement, Macarius, Ephraem Syrus, and others. His theological reading and reflection scarcely slowed over the span of six decades – but it was constantly controlled and guided by his practical concerns. He was always striving to clarify his message and to communicate it to the people of his day and age. The result is a distinctive theological perspective, that merits serious consideration, even in another age and atmosphere (in the Preface to John Wesley (Library of Protestant Thought), New York: Oxford University Press, 1964: iv-v).
(My friend and colleague Andy Edwards told me that he thinks this is the first time the term “evangelical catholicism” was used.)
I consider myself to be an evangelical catholic, or at least that’s what I aspire to be. Evangelical theology, if it is not nourished by the deep roots of historic orthodoxy, can end up going off in all sorts of strange directions. At the same time, there are important insights from the Reformers, the Pietists, the Purtians, the Great Awakenings, and later evangelicals, which need to be preserved and upheld. A catholicity which is not evangelical risks becoming triumphalistic; an evangelicalism which is not catholic risks repeating the errors of history.
The irony for me personally is that I did not come to these theological convictions through being raised in a Wesleyan church (which I was), but though the influence of my own teachers in theology at Wycliffe College (one of whom is the current editor of Pro Ecclesia). It is only now, looking back as someone who has come to see the value of the historic faith and practices of the church through the centuries, that I can appreciate John Wesley as a fellow evangelical catholic, from whom I still have much to learn.
James Pedlar 
Evangelical catholic is an oxymoron. What Gospel do you suppose they would preach? They don’t have the Gospel of Jesus which says we are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.
catholicism is not Christian. I need not to elaborate as it is obvious. (I used lower case c on purpose.)
Hi Steve
Thank you for stopping by. I assume you mean Roman Catholics don’t know the gospel. I’d have to disagree with you completely. I’ve studied a fair bit of Roman Catholic theology, and they certainly affirm that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. I’ve also been privileged to study with and work alongside a number of wonderful Catholic Christians, who have deepened my own knowledge of the gospel.
It seems as though you are pretty anti-Catholic, but if you are at all open to changing you mind, you might want to read the *Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification*, written jointly by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Fellowship. It reads, in part:
“15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”
That last sentence is as clear as day – grace alone, not because of any merit on our part.
You can find the rest here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Yes, I have to agree that that declaration is correct according to Scripture. Except this part ” in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father.” Why throw that in?
If you agree that salvation is a gift from God and not of works, then why do catholics have the sacraments which are works? I have studied the catechism and it clearly states that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
So which is it?
I went to the site which you posted and read all. I didn’t see anything to suggest that this is a vatican approved declaration.
Then I went to the catechism and found this :” COUNCIL OF TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION CANON XXIV
If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
I don’t know if indulgences is a sacrament, but certainly is said to be necessary for salvation. So why would you, a Lutheran, oppose your founder and crawl into bed with catholicism?
Hi Steve,
A few responses:
1. I don’t think the Catholic understanding of sacraments is that they are “works” in the way you think they are. And if you push them on the issue, they will allow for salvation without sacraments in certain situations. Salvation is a gift: about this Catholics and Protestants agree.
2. The Joint Declaration that you read is most certainly a Vatican document. If you look closely at the web address for the link I sent you, you will see that you were reading the document from the Vatican’s own website.
3. Regarding the Council of Trent, I certainly wouldn’t agree with the way it characterizes salvation. However, the research I’ve done on Trent tells me that Catholics and Protestants were “talking past” one another at many points, not least of which was the precise meaning of the term “justification.” So, although I have issues with the way the Council of Trent addresses these topics, I’m interested in knowing how Catholics today talk about salvation. After all, Trent was written almost 500 years ago.
4. Indulgences were not considered a sacrament by Catholics. I think most Catholics today would agree that the sale of indulgences was a problematic practice.
5. I’m not sure if you understand the difference between “catholic” and “Catholic.” Lots of protestants are concerned with being “catholic,” but that doesn’t mean they want to be Roman Catholics. It means they want to uphold the “great tradition” of the church, which has been faithfully passed down through the ages.
5. I’m not a Lutheran, but the whole point of this post is to show that being “catholic” not mean ‘opposing the founder’ of the Reformation, but is actually closer to what Luther wanted.
6. I think the fact that you ask why I would “crawl into bed with catholicism” is reprehensible. Why would you choose such an image to describe the desire to glean wisdom from Christian brothers and sisters down through the ages?
Evangelical catholicism is biblical and that is what church should loke like.
Evangelical Catholicism is what the world needs today.
Thanks
Thanks for stopping by, and I agree with you!
The term “evangelical Catholicism” is MUCH older than 1979. Check out my book, The Right of the Protestant Left: God’s Totalitarianism (Macmillan 2012) on evangelical Catholicism in the ecumenical movement
Hi Mark – thanks for the recommendation about earlier uses of the term. I was actually suggesting 1964 but I can see that your book covers an earlier period. Looks like a very interesting read. I wonder if Outler was consciously drawing on these precedents from earlier 20th C American thought.
Thanks for the reply. Among the theologians I studied, “Evangelical Catholicism” was a strong emphasis dureing the 1930s. Here’s a blog post that explains a bit more: http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2012/07/evangelical-catholicism-finding.html
Very interesting…contemporary “evangelical catholics” (i.e., Braaten, Jenson, and those connected with the Centre for Catholic and Evangelical Theology and its journal /Pro Ecclesia/) are certainly ecumenical in their outlook, though many of them are critical of the direction that the “official” ecumenical movement has taken in the last three or four decades (WCC and the various national councils). It would be interesting to see the ways in which this generation of evangelical catholics differs from the one you investigated.
Indeed, thanks so much for sharing your insights and knowledge on this!