New Directions in Evangelical Spirituality PDF
New Directions in Evangelical Spirituality PDF
New Directions in Evangelical Spirituality PDF
N ew D ir e c t io n s in
E v a n g e l ic a l Sp ir it u a l it y
Si m o n C h a n
Trinity Theological College (Singapore)
In t r o d u c t io n
219
220 Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care
content with just appropriating the ancient spiritual heritage; they are real-
izing that there is more to spiritual formation than just individual forma-
tion. The spiritual life is not just about one’s personal relationship with
God. There is a corporate dimension which is supremely realized in the
church especially through its worship and liturgy. The works of Robert
Webber have been influential in this new emphasis.5
This paper will briefly look at some movements that reflect the newer
emphasis on ecclesial practice and offer a preliminary assessment. My ten-
tative conclusion is that while the new evangelical spirituality does involve
a major paradigm shift from individual to ecclesial formation, the attempt
of most of these movements to recover their “catholic” identities, that is, to
recover what they hold in common with the church universal and the larger
Christian spiritual tradition, is a hopeful sign of a maturing evangelical
spirituality.
Fa c t o r s C o n t r i b u t i n g to the N ew
Eva n g e l ic a l Spir it u a l it y
There are at least two major factors giving rise to these new devel-
opments. The first is the impact of the Pentecostal-charismatic renewal
movements across different church traditions since the 1960s. It is no exag-
geration to say that contemporary Christianity has been largely “charis-
maticized,”6 so that practices that used to be associated with a particular
church tradition are freely assimilated into other traditions. If evangelicals
and Catholics have no qualms using the Anglican charismatic Alpha Course
(which includes a component on the “filling of the Spirit” as a distinct ex-
perience in the Christian life),7 it would not be surprising to find evangeli-
of service. Dallas Willard, The Spirit o f the Disciplines (San Francisco: Harper-
Collins, 1991) divides the exercises into two categories: disciplines of abstinence
(solitude, silence fasting, frugality, chastity, secrecy, sacrifice) and disciplines of en-
gagement (study, worship, celebration, service, prayer, fellowship, confession, sub-
mission). The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible edited by Richard Foster, Dallas
Willard, Eugene Peterson and others lists 17 spiritual disciplines. Adele Ahlberg Cal-
houn, Spiritual Discipline H andbook: Practices That Transform Us (IVP, 2005) enu-
merates 62 disciplines organized around the central focus on worship.
5 E.g., Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why Evangelicals are Attracted to
Liturgical Worship (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1985). The Institute of Worship
Studies which Webber founded has produced an impressive amount of resources for
worship and the liturgy. See http://www.iwsfla.org/alumni/ resources.html (accessed
28 March 2009). Many leaders of the convergence movement (see below) have ac-
knowledged their debt to Webber.
6 Dave Tomlinson, The Post Evangelical (London: SPCK, 1995), 15-21.
7 Joyce Gan, “Try Alpha,” <http://www.catholic.org.sg/cn/wordpress/?p=1945>
(accessed 2 Feb. 2008).
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 221
8 Rich Heffern, “The Pentecostals and the M onks,” National Catholic Reporter
(Dec 15, 2006): 9a, 10a.
9 See Harvey Cox, Fire From Heaven: The Rise O f Pentecostal Spirituality A nd
The Reshaping O f Religion In The Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Da
Capeo Press, 2001); Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global
Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Philip
Jenkins, The N e xt Christendom: The Coming o f Global Christianity, rev. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
10 Robert Wuthnow, After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s
(Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1998), 15-16.
11 Ibid., 16.
222 Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care
become apparent in what follows that this aspect of postmodernity has the
greatest impact on the new development in evangelical spirituality. The
moral philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre has been especially influential in
promoting this vision of reality among postmodern evangelicals;12 and the
most influential theologian who has systematically applied this Macln-
tyrean vision is probably Stanley Hauerwas.13
In what follows I will look at four movements within the evangelical
world focusing primarily on their understanding of the role of the church in
spiritual formation.14
E m e r g in g C h u r c h e s
12 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed. (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981). Cf. Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallen-
berg and Mark Thiessen Nation, eds., Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradi-
tion: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Harrisburg, Penn: Trinity Press, 1997).
13 See, e.g. his A Community o f Character: Toward a Constructive Christian So-
cial Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986). For an introduction
to his thought, see The Hauerwas Reader, eds. John Berkman and Michael G.
Cartwright (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001).
14 I exclude from consideration those from mainline denominations who iden-
tify themselves as “catholic-evangelical.” Although theologically much closer to
evangelicalism than liberal Protestantism, their spiritual orientation has always in-
eluded a liturgical and sacramental dimension, and so what is new for many Free
Church evangelicals is not new to them. They are probably best represented by
Lutheran theologians like Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson and the journal Pro Eccle-
sia. Braaten is director of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology.
15 Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian
Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 44. Gibbs and
Bolger’s book offers a fair and comprehensive study of emerging churches.
16 Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, 45.
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 223
Given the fact that many evangelical churches are still operating within
the paradigm of modernity (timeless, propositional truth, objective knowl-
edge derived from rationalist thought processes, etc.), emerging church
leaders are calling for radical deconstruction. The “solid church” with its
rigid institutions, fixed time and space needs to give way to the “liquid
church.” Pete Ward describes the liquid church as one that “emerges out of
the active ministry of everyone who is joined to Christ. As people join to
Christ and communicate Christ with one another, the networked pattern
that grows from this faithful communication of believers is then identified
with the church.” 17 In this process they have found certain premodern
modes of thought and communication useful for reshaping the modern
church. This explains why emerging churches are experimenting with an-
cient visual symbols (art, icons, and candles), sacraments, signs and rituals.
These modes help to deconstruct the “solid church” and make it more in
tune with the realities of postmodern culture.18
Emerging churches have a number of positive features. First, they are
“missional communities” concerned with reaching the unchurched in the
new culture. They emphasize centrifugal rather than centripetal mission.
The idea of a “liquid church” makes the missional church highly adaptable,
and yet this does not mean that it is totally formless: the church is governed
by the “grand narrative” of the gospel of Jesus Christ.19 Second, the emerg-
ing church’s emphasis on kingdom goals and values is commendable as it
challenges some of the cherished values of modernity that modern churches
unconsciously imbibe: individual rights, privatized religion, etc. It chal-
lenges the modern notion that community is something extraneous to the
individual, something that one may choose or not choose to join. Con-
sequently, it fosters a spirituality of radical discipleship, communion, and
servanthood.
Some aspects of emerging churches, however, are problematic. For in-
stance, while the emphasis on the missional church is important, one must
ask if the church is primarily missional. For many emerging church leaders
the church exists primarily to serve the kingdom until the consummation of
the reign of God.20 But what happens when mission is finally over? Will
that mean the end of the church? Perhaps emerging church leaders might
say that the church’s function would change. But if this is so, then mission
is not what gives the church its basic identity. By making mission primary,
emerging churches may be failing to deal with what truly defines the
17 Pete Ward, Liquid Church (Carlisle and Peabody, MA: Paternoster and Hen-
drickson, 2002), 39.
18 Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, 220-23.
19 See e.g., Ward, Liquid Church, chap. 7, esp. 70-71.
20 E.g., Dan Kimball, citing Millard Erickson, sees “the primary function of the
church (people) [as] her evangelistic mission.” Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church:
Vintage Christianity for N ew Generations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 93.
224 Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care
21 See Simon Chan, “The Mission of the Trinity” (interview), Christianity Today
51.6 (June 2007): 48-51.
22 I have in mind the Ebionite heresy of Cerinthus who taught that the preexis-
tent Christ descended on the man Jesus at his baptism, but left him before his death
on the Cross. See J. F. Bethune-Baker, A n Introduction to the Early History o f Chris-
tian Doctrine (London: Methuen, 1951), 66.
23 See Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, 90 cf. 99-105.
24 Gibbs and Bolger note that some emerging churches that initially tried to dis-
pense with “meetings” found themselves going back to meetings (106).
25 Some appear to take the Christian tradition more seriously than others. See,
e.g., the website “Deep Church,” http://deepchurch.org.uk/about/ (accessed March
8,2009).
26 Brian McLaren’s Generous O rthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004)
comes immediately to mind. On what basis, e.g., does McLaren select the Christus
Victor theme from (supposedly) Catholicism and the sanative view of salvation from
Orthodoxy?
27 Alan Jacobs, “Do-It-Yourself Tradition,” First Things 189 (Jan 2009): 27-32.
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 225
“event” but it is an event that grows out of a history: the living tradition as
the life of the Spirit in the church.28
B a p t i s t Sa c r a m e n t a l i s m
28 See e.g. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life o f the World: Sacraments and
Orthodoxy (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2000), 26-28; Georges
Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern O rthodox View, Vol. 1 in Collected
Works (Belmont, MA: N ordland Publishing, 1972), 41-43.
29 E.g., Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson, eds., Baptist Sacramentalism
(Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003); Steven R. Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity: Essays
on Tradition and the Baptist Vision (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006); Steven
Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place o f Tradition in Theology (Carlisle: Pater-
noster, 2002); S. K. Fowler, More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery o f
Baptismal Sacramentalism (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002); John Colwell, Promise and
Presence: An Exploration o f Sacramental Theology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster,
2006); Christopher Ellis, Gathering: A Theology and Spirituality o f Worship in the
Free Church Tradition (London: SCM, 2004); Philip E. Thompson, “A New Ques-
tion in Baptist History: Seeking a Catholic Spirit among Early Baptists,” Pro Ecclesia
8.1 (Winter, 1999): 51-72; M ark Medley, “Catholics, Baptists, and the Normativity
of Tradition,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 28.2 (Summer 2001): 119-129; B.
Harvey, “The Eucharistic Idiom of the Gospel,” Pro Ecclesia 9.3 (Summer, 2000):
297-318; Curtis Freeman, “Where Two or Three Are Gathered: Communion Ecclesi-
ology in the Free Church,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 13.03 (2006): 259-272.
30 The Manifesto was the work of members of the Cooperative Baptist Fellow-
ship and can be found in Perspectives in Religious Studies 24.3 (2006): 303-310 and
in H armon, Towards Baptist Catholicity (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 2 1 5 -
229. Subsequent citations from the Manifesto are taken from Perspectives.
31 “Re-visioning Baptist Identity,” no. 1.
32 Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity: Essays on Tradition and the Baptist
Vision (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 61-63.
33 “Re-visioning Baptist Identity,” no. 4.
226 Journal of Spiritual Formation &; Soul Care
emerging church leaders, Baptist sacramentalists have a deep respect for the
Christian tradition. They are not so much concerned with re-making the
church to address the concerns of postmodern culture as with re-establishing
a more catholic Baptist identity. This is why they are engaged in a much more
systematic retrieval of the Christian tradition, especially its patristic expres-
sion. Furthermore, they seek to retrieve not just specific aspects of patristic
theology but more specifically the patristic understanding of the centrality of
worship in the life of the church. Steven Harmon, for example, believes that
This means that the formation of one’s spiritual life cannot be realized
apart from the life of worship—a worship which necessarily involves
“sacramental and liturgical practices [as] the central means by which ‘the
ecclesial self’ is shaped as ‘the worshipping self,’ and vice versa.”35
One surprising feature of the Manifesto is that it displays a strongly
anti-authoritarian stance as it seeks to relocate authority from individuals
to the community, from Scripture as text to Scripture as witness to revela-
tion. It rejects “a coercive hierarchy of authority” and “all forms of author-
itarian interpretation” of Scripture.36 While authoritarianism is rightly re-
jected, the critical question is whether Baptist sacramentalists could
develop a theology of authority that makes sense of the liturgical leadership
of the church (a point to be taken up later). This question seems unavoid-
able if liturgical and sacramental worship is seen as necessary for ecclesial
formation. Yet, the issue does not appear to have been addressed.37
Fe d e r a l V is io n
to correct basic errors that have occurred within their own history.38 Fed-
eral visionists come mostly from the more conservative Presbyterian
churches such as the Presbyterian Church of America and the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church. The name federal vision is derived from the belief that
covenantal relationship, understood not in a legalistic way, but as the com-
munion of the triune God with humanity, is the all-embracing category for
understanding God’s relation with humanity and the entire creation. God’s
covenant is not subsequent to creation but inherent in creation.39 In other
words, God’s relationship with the world is conducted on the basis of
covenant—a covenant that is supremely realized in the church. In contrast
to the emerging church advocates, federal visionists do not regard the
church merely as an instrument of the kingdom; rather, the church is the
chief activity of the kingdom. According to Peter Leithart, one of the most
prominent advocates of federal vision,
In the Bible, the kingdom of God is mainly concerned with the church,
her sacraments and worship, her discipline and teaching, and her min-
istries of mercy. The kingdom has more to do with ecclesiology than
with eschatology (narrowly defined) or with political theory. The really
big kingdom activities do not take place in the halls of Congress. . . .
But the really big kingdom activity—the act that radically changes the
world—is the gathering of the people of God on the Lord’s day at the
heavenly banquet table, when God’s people hear His Word, offer hum-
ble petitions to the King, and feast on the flesh and blood of Jesus.40
38 For a sympathetic summary of the main ideas of federal vision see Joseph
Minich, “Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy? An examination of the Federal Vision
Controversy,” http://federal-vision.com/minich.html (accessed 21 Jan 2009). A good
introduction to the central ideas of federal vision can be found in Steve Wilkins and
Duane Garner, eds., The Federal Vision (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004).
39 Joseph Minich, “Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy? An examination of the
Federal Vision Controversy,” 11.
40 Peter J. Leithard, The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality
o f the Church (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1993), 212-13.
41 Jeffrey J. Meyers, The Lord's Service: The Grace o f Covenant Renewal Wor-
ship (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003), 33-34.
228 Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care
and not an ‘approximate’ Church.”42 Federal visionists believe that this em-
phasis on the objective character of the church can help to address a peren-
nial problem in Reformed theology, namely, the doctrine of assurance going
back to some of the Puritans in the seventeenth century that led to excessive
introspection for subjective signs of saving grace in the individual. In stress-
ing the objectivity of the covenant federal visionists also affirm the objectiv-
ity of the covenant signs: baptism objectively places one in the covenant;
the eucharist is true feeding on the body and blood of Christ to eternal
life—that is the basis of assurance of salvation and not some subjective evi-
dence of salvation that one tries to discover through introspection. The vis-
ible church too is the true body of Christ and not just a façade for some in-
visible, spiritual reality. In this way, federal vision attempts to overcome an
abstract decretal theology which not only results in an individualized, sub-
jective understanding of salvation—am I one of the elect?—but also reduces
the “real” church into an invisible entity. By pointing to the objective real-
ity of what Christ has accomplished and the objective participation in it
through union with Christ through baptism and the Lord’s Supper, federal
vision reframes the whole issue of assurance: Assurance is not dependent on
an affirmative answer to the question: Do you really believe that at baptism
you are in Christ? Rather, the proper approach should be, if you are bap-
tized then you are in Christ. This does not mean that one is presumed to be
saved just because one has been baptized. But a baptized person in good
standing with the church is presumed saved unless there are obvious signs
to the contrary.43
C onvergence C hurches
42 “A Joint Federal Vision Statement,” see under “The Visible and Invisible
Church,” http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/fvstatement.pdf (accessed 24 Feb 2009).
43 Steve Wilkins, “Covenant, Baptism and Salvation,” Federal Vision, 58.
44 There are currently three such communions: the International Communion of
the Charismatic Episcopal Church (founded in 1992), the Communion of Evangelical
Episcopal Churches (1993), and its sister communion, the Communion of Conver-
gence Churches (2005).
45 From the website of the International Communion of the Charismatic Episco-
pal Church, http://www.iccec.org/ (accessed 27 February 2009).
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 229
But what distinguishes them from the other movements that we have con-
sidered so far is that they see themselves as a “communion” rather than a
denomination.
A n A s s e s s m e n t : So m e E c c l e sio l o g ic a l Th e m e s
In this brief survey I have tried to bring out some similarities and dif-
ferences between the four movements.49 All the movements are marked by
the shift from an individual to a communal conception of the Christian
life. Except for the emerging churches, worship, more precisely liturgical
and sacramental worship, is considered definitive for ecclesial identity.
This is a major paradigm shift from traditional evangelical spirituality.
Not surprisingly, many traditional evangelicals have deep reservations
about these new developments, but not for the same reasons. Dave Hunt,
for example, sees practices like visualization (a practice recommended by
Foster) as bordering on shamanism.50 Others have questioned the appro-
priateness of commending new practices as essential for spiritual forma-
tion. For them only those disciplines that are explicitly sanctioned by
Scripture are absolutely necessary.51 For Robert Plummer, only such disci-
plines qualify as spiritual disciplines; others such as silence and solitude
are “conditions that aid” spiritual discipline.52 For Donald Whitney gen-
uine evangelical spirituality should be developed within the boundaries set
by the principles of sola scriptura and sola fide.52, David Parker, however,
thinks that the addition of new spiritual exercises or disciplines does not
substantially alter the shape of evangelical spirituality so long as they serve
to enhance one’s personal relationship with God.54 Nonetheless, Parker is
concerned that exercises that imply the “essentially sacramental character”
of the Christian faith would undermine the evangelical faith.55 Although
more open to the “new spirituality,” Parker seems to imply that at this
point evangelicals should establish their status confessionis since the “fo-
cus on the corporate, sacramental nature of the church in Catholic and
Liturgical sources” is incompatible “with the evangelical understanding of
fellowship and grace.”56
The shift from individual to ecclesial formation does indeed represent a
radical reorientation of the way the Christian life is understood and lived.
This will become more apparent as we reflect on three ecclesiological
themes which are implied in or arise from the new evangelical sacramental
spirituality.
Underlying the differences between the traditional and the new evan-
gelical spirituality are different hermeneutical presuppositions. When Bob
DeWaay objects to Willard’s enjoining certain spiritual disciplines like soli-
tude, the underlying point at issue is the way in which the authority of the
Bible is constituted. For DeWaay, only what is explicitly taught in the Scrip-
ture or intended by the biblical writer can be enjoined; if not, it should be
optional: “If we need solitude, God . . . might make it so the only job we
can find is being a midnight shift watchm an.”57 This way of understanding
the authority of Scripture is based on the grammatical-historical method of
interpretation which seeks out the authorial intention and the “objective
meaning” of the text. But for Willard, the biblical basis for observing cer-
tain spiritual disciplines is not based solely on specific texts enjoining them
(there are, in fact, few such texts), but on their connection to larger Chris-
tological themes, such as the imitation of Christ, Jesus’ identification with
humanity through the incarnation, and the doctrine of salvation that in-
eludes the transformation of the body.58 Without being explicit about it,
Willard was actually reading the Bible canonically.
The reading of the Bible as canon grows out of a deep conviction that
the Bible is one book whose ultimate author is God and whose chief content
is Christ. The Bible is also the church’s book in the sense that it is through
the church’s communal reading of the texts that the church comes to recog-
nize these texts as authoritative. The authoritative teaching of Scripture is
derived from a symbiotic relationship between the church as interpretive
community and her Scriptures. In contrast, the so-called scientific approach
to interpretation presupposes that the true meaning of the text is open to
anyone with the requisite skills. The church relies on the expertise of the in-
dividual interpreter or the collective skills of the scholarly guild for her un-
derstanding of the Bible. There is no awareness that the scholars need the
church to interpret the church’s book correctly. The church as church plays
no significant role in the interpretive process.
A canonical reading of Scripture does not mean that the grammatical-
historical method is jettisoned, but it would not be restricted to deriving
teachings only on the intention of the biblical writers, but would draw
teachings from examples, types, history, stories, etc. For example, a typo-
logical interpretation, or “spiritual exegesis” is predicated on the church’s
understanding of the Bible as having a Christological center.59 This was the
method of the early church fathers and, contrary to what is commonly be-
lieved among many evangelicals, it was also the method of the Reformers.60
This method is also fully recognized by federal vision advocates. For exam-
pie, the imputation of Chrises righteousness is based on the believers’ union
with Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament: the “new Adam,” “new
Israel,” and “the greater Joshua.”61 Similarly, because the Old Testament is
not abrogated but fulfilled in Christ, federal visionists see the basic order or
shape of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament as providing the shape
of worship for the church—which is precisely what we find in the tradi-
tional liturgy.62
have not moved significantly beyond the old evangelical ecclesiology of try-
ing to reinvent the church.66
If the liturgy is a given, then it cannot be arbitrarily constructed (or de-
constructed). This is why in liturgical worship, worship is understood as
primarily an enactment and an indwelling: the enactment of the revelation
of the triune God, and the church’s indwelling of the paschal mystery.67 As
there can only be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, there can
only be one liturgy of word and sacrament that manifests the one church.68
Meyers, a federal visionist, believes that this ancient liturgical order of
word and sacrament reflects “a gut-level familiarity with the biblical way of
approaching G od” and proceeds to show from a careful study of the Old
Testament sacrificial system that this was in fact the case.69 Similarly, Bap-
tist sacramentalist, M ark Medley, drawing from various traditional
sources, sees worship as essentially eucharistic and as the key to forming
the ecclesial self.70 It is here that the difference between liturgical and non-
liturgical worship becomes most apparent. It should be made clear that the
distinction being considered between liturgical and non-liturgical is strictly
a theological one rather than sociological or phenomenological. From the
perspective of ritual studies any structure of worship whether written or
unwritten, using set prayers or free prayers, could be called a liturgy. But
theologically there are different rationales underlying the respective forms
of worship. Basically liturgical worship seeks to enact and indwell the cen-
tral revelation of the triune God, i.e., the mystery of God in Christ or the
paschal mystery.71 If we may use an analogy from the world of acting, in
liturgical worship, the worshippers are “acting” out the given liturgical
script. Like good actors, worshippers indwell the text, make it their own,
and in the process are transformed by the text. Non-liturgical worship, on
the other hand, is governed primarily by the needs of the worshippers. This
72 Jack Hayford, Worship His Majesty (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2000), 62. But even
a traditional evangelical like Donald Bloesch seems to imply the same rationale. In
his recommendation of “An Evangelical Order of Worship” we detect a certain arbi-
trariness in the choice of readings and frequency of communion. See The Church:
Sacraments, Worship, Minsitry, Mission (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 141-142.
73 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1984), 187.
74 See the critique of the Vineyard songs by Martyn Percy, Wonders and Power
(London: SPCK, 1996).
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 235
The church catholic that all Christians confess in the Creed is not yet
one. But if they truly believe that it should be one, then they need to do the-
ology and carry on their ecclesial practice as if it were one.78 That is the
next challenge for evangelicals. They cannot exist on a do-it-yourself tradi-
tion even if it bears the closest resemblance to the church catholic. They
need to explore the question of historical continuity. This is not to say that
evangelicals should become Roman Catholic or Orthodox; rather, in ad-
dressing the question of the historical church catholic with the Roman and
Orthodox churches, evangelical may yet make a distinctive contribution to
genuine ecumenism, such that continuing reformation will occur in all the
Christian traditions and a truly catholic convergence, or at least a faint vi-
sion of it, will begin to emerge.
C o n c l u sio n
78 Carl Braaten, “The Role of Dogma in Church and Theology,” The Task o f
Theology Today, eds. Victor Pfitzner and Hilary Regan (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 53.
79 Examples of catholic evangelicalism can be seen in “Evangelicals and
Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” in First Things
43 (May 1994): 15-22. The statement is the result of consultations between evangel-
icals and Roman Catholics beginning in 1992. See also Charles Colson, Your Word is
Truth: A Project o f Evangelicals and Catholics Together (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002); Dwight Longnecker and David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical De-
bate (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004); Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers
Grove: IVP, 2006).
Chan: N ew Directions in Evangelical Spirituality 237
Author: Simon Chan. Title: Earnest Lau Professor o f Systematic Theology. Af-
filiation: Trinity Theological College, Singapore. Highest Degree: Ph.D., University
o f Cambridge. Areas o f interest/specialization: the interface between theology, spiri-
tuality and worship.
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.