There is a general American approach to Christianity and Scripture that is somewhat different than Catholic or Protestant (as understood in evangelical Christology) views and policies, a difference that likely grows out of tendencies for individualism and democracy. Individualism implies that the Scripture teaches what the serious reader decides it means to him, rather than that another person determines its teaching. The democratic factor is that there is an underlying feeling that one interpretation is about as good as another, if there is due consistency in truth search. All this leads to some confusion, and troublesome differences for Christ’s Church.
Pope Benedict visited the United States during April 2008. He addressed the concern of the Papal See relative to American patterns in the Church. His basic response was that Catholic leaders in America, or globally, should simply follow the clear statements of doctrine by which the most faithful adherents should be guided in belief and practice. His principle is well regarded by other representations of the Christian faith. Protestants would inject that the basic foundation is found in Scripture, with the church in an important but lesser role in inspiration than the Catholic position has it. The Catholic authority would agree to the biblical source, but add that the mother church has the privilege of including her tradition in the working out the commands of Christ, with the decision to both interpret the Scriptures for orthodoxy and to add ex cathedra pronouncements as vital to faith. For evangelical Protestants the promise to Peter relative to authority after the ascension of Christ has quite important apostolic meaning but lesser than the Catholic representatives of Christianity have declared it to be as related to church tradition.
During my lifetime the Catholic and Protestant arms of the church that adhere to biblical authority have narrowed gaps separating them. But it is more than that. This is due to various factors including: 1) -the humbling confessions by the Papal See of past wrongs committed by the Church; 2) -the efforts of Pope John, in his short reign, that called the Vatican Council; 3) -the refusal to adapt to the distortions of society and of biblical faith and conduct; 4) -the decline of animosities between Christians in Catholic and Protestant churches; and, 5) -the appeal in presentation of Christianity by popular communicators (like Fulton Sheen and Billy Graham). General feelings grew that there is more good to be done in a friendly cooperation in a morally uncertain world, and more that is common to our faith than the differentials have implied in the past. Even statements of the Pope, relative to the authority of the Catholic Church over all believers’ acceptance before God, are taken patiently by most Protestant believers. The Church, we believe, is a spiritual body of believers in the kingdom of God, not to be identified in a sectarian way, except secondarily. The renewal of the church is seen to be greater in meaning and influence than any divisive factor might affect it. The emerging point is that Christ is advanced as the figure in all matters in providing the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, and the Author and Finisher of Christian faith in the New. Presenting the redeeming Christ alive and ministering is the objective. It is good for the Christian cause when we find more that unites Christians than divides them into sectarian identities. Divisions tend to narrow when the mutual accent is on the redeeming Christ. They widen in departure from Scripture, or the addition of tradition (something that Jesus challenged in leaders), or when matters, like exclusiveness of faith, are applied to an institution of Christian faith. There arises concern that in the final evaluation, each Christian in Christ’s one Church of believers seeks to answer as one’s own spiritual, biblical priest. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020