or,
An Examination of the Twin Sisters of Medieval Roman Catholicism and American Evangelicalism
Evangelicalism has moved much closer to Rome in recent years and unthinkable as it was just a few decades ago, many now consider Roman Catholics to be fellow Christians. In recent days this has been most evident with the way Evangelicals speaks of figures like JD Vance and Erika Kirk. These Roman Catholics who worship Mary, partake of the idolatry that is the Mass, venerate a tradition of false prophets that claim to speak in the place of Christ, and find salvation in a merit-based sacerdotal system, are deemed inspiring fellow believers. The term 'Christian' has itself has been run through so many filters and redefined to such an extent that theologically and even culturally it struggles to have any kind of actual meaning. The same is true of Evangelicalism which describes more of a cultural attitude and ethos (if not a political movement) than any kind of ecclesiastical movement, theology, or identity.
I have long argued that Roman Catholicism is the result of a fusion or syncretism between the Christianity which emerged in the largely Mediterranean context of Hellenistic Late Antiquity and the Germanic cultures of Northern and Central Europe - a union that occurred during the Early Middle Ages. This assessment is hardly unique. Its practices and the culture it produced represent a syncretism between these various forces and when compared with the religion of the apostles is found wanting to say the least. Certainly by the 11th century there was a multitude of voices protesting its claims and practices and actively working against it and what it had become - in both the Greek and Latin spheres. These dissenting people proved often willing to give up their lives in the pursuit of this counter-cultural protest. Some were (by New Testament standards) Christians and others while motivated by religion or ethics cannot be reckoned as such - though some of their protestations remain valid and worthy of consideration.
I continue to argue that Evangelicalism and in particular the American variety (which is now setting the standard and tone for the global movement) represents the very same syncretism - the hybrid religion or counterfeit Christianity that emerged with Rome over 1000 years ago. But in the case of Evangelicalism, the cultural context is very different and as such the syncretism manifests itself in a different form. But the substance of this false religion is the same. The impulses and driving force are the same even if the exterior packaging is different. In other words there is a kind of acculturated False Christianity that is seemingly able to manifest itself in any context. What it looks like depends on the context. In the Greek-Byzantine setting it will emerge as Eastern Orthodoxy. In the Latin West, it becomes Roman Catholicism. In the context of Enlightenment Liberalism it can either turn into apostate Modernist Christianity or into Evangelicalism. The latter is already succumbing to all the same forms of Modernist Theology albeit often by different routes.
And I would argue that despite the fact that many (or even most) Evangelicals still profess a belief in the veracity, trustworthiness, and authority of Scripture, they in fact deny these things and are functionally apostate - representing a form of false Christianity, opposed to the New Testament, with a gospel that is no gospel and as a form of deception will lead many (if not most) of its adherents to perdition.
Evangelicals and many Confessionalists will argue these debates over cultural confusion and syncretist identity are secondary, and while Evangelicalism may have its faults, it has retained the substance of the gospel message even while Rome has not. Obviously I do not agree.
Now when speaking with one class of Confessionalists, they will reject the claim that Rome was a False Church by the time of the Dark Ages. They insist that while Rome was in a process of degeneration it retained the basics of orthodoxy with regard to the Trinity and Incarnation, it upheld the Scriptures as the Word of God and even retained the substance of the gospel in the broad strokes. For this line of thinking, the crisis emerged in the 16th century when Rome (in response to the Magisterial Reformers) explicitly rejected the teaching of Justification by Faith Alone. At this moment it ceased to be a viable Church - this despite the fact that before Luther no one had even taught Sola Fide, certainly not in the narrow scope that he did. This narrative allows Confessionalists to appropriate the bits of history they want to retain - the 'glories' of Western Christendom, the cathedrals, universities, castles, and in some cases things like the Crusades, even while they can distance themselves from the parts they don't like - despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Middle Ages is an impossible conception apart from the larger body of ideas and the syncretism of Ptolemy, Galen, Aristotle and others with Platonic and Neo-Platonic influenced Christian thought. This is something that even contemporary pro-Capitalist, American flag-waving Traditionalist Catholics fail to understand even as they critique modernity and Liberalism and argue for Integralism and the rejection of a separation between Church and state.
Older generations of Protestants were willing to grant that the gospel was largely lost by the advent of the Dark Ages (c.500) - and while dissidents opposed Rome during these centuries, they were dark times as the light of the gospel was underground and largely hid from the world. This view which tended to be associated more with an older Whig approach to historiography was forward looking and was not quite as keen to celebrate the Middle Ages - preferring instead to laud the age of empires and industrial might. The problem in these circles was the tendency to romanticise groups like the Waldenses, Lollards, and Hussites and make them into anachronistic versions of Magisterial Protestants - which they were not. They were Christians. None of them held to Luther's Sola Fide formula, but they did uphold the authority of Scripture and argued that the Papacy was antichrist. They taught salvation by faith but not in accordance with the Lutheran and Reformed formulations, and some certainly retained views of the sacraments that would be considered out of bounds by the Reformed - and especially today's Calvinists and Evangelicals.
So there are disagreements as to whether or not Rome had the gospel before the 16th century. The argument that suggests they did until Trent is simply dishonest. Long before Trent, Rome taught the Seven Sacraments, various forms of shallow spirituality or cheap grace, as well as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation. Rome did not need to formally deny Sola Fide - it had already (de facto) done so for untold centuries. The gospel was lost in the circles of Rome.
At first glance, Evangelicalism seems to be diametrically opposed to this kind of religion but in reality it is but a different form of the same creature. It has its own expressions of cheap grace and superstition. In lieu of baptismal regeneration it relies on Decisional Regeneration - a subjective (as opposed to objective) moment-in-time superstition that functionally renders sanctification and holiness as optional or secondary. While medieval Roman practice looked to rote ritual and folk piety, Evangelicalism relies on therapeutically-driven forms of spirituality and is deeply invested in pseudo-Christian expressions of pop music and often a kind of folk religion associated with patriotism.
The cheap grace system is framed and reinforced by forms found in the culture. Some individuals are undoubtedly saved in spite of this, but in gospel terms both camps and epochs are marked by the same kind of cheap grace that finds its peace with the world. Some are saved in spite of the system's defects, but myriads are lost.
Rome was and is given over to idolatry. It prays to saints and regularly resorts to the use of statues and other images and its use of these tokens is rightly condemned as idolatry and superstition. It should be noted that Rome denies these charges and has arguments which attempt to explain their uses as something other than worship - the basis of the idolatry charge. Their arguments are found wanting and are utterly self-deceptive and unconvincing. What they call service (dulia) or hyper-service (hyper-dulia) is to put it simply worship - or latria and hence idolatry, viz. improperly offered and directed worship to other than God alone.
Likewise if Evangelicals are accused of idolatry when they incorporate American symbols in the Church or seem to equate American greatness with Christian status - they too deny that they are engaged in idolatry. While medieval Catholics might have had their folk saints or national saints which could also be invoked for protection of a geopolitical realm, American Evangelicalism engages in rank idolatry with regard to the flag of the United States, its (often romanticised) history, its armed forces, and in the celebration of its wealth and power - which it takes to be God's approval and sanction.
The forms are admittedly very different but in some cases this is only because individualist and consumerist American culture is generally irreverent and also because it has a more transactional and utilitarian approach to questions of religion and the religious value placed on something. In many respects this is due to the context of Enlightenment or Classical Liberalism which defines American culture as opposed to the values of Antiquity and the Medieval period which had a very different understanding of the individual's place in the world.
American consumerism also has a quality and ethos of immediacy and as such it wants its saints as living and present as opposed to historical figures of memory. In the media age this helps to explain the way in which American Evangelicalism (echoing its context) is given over to celebrity worship - a point to which we will return more than once. Charlie Kirk who is rapidly being transformed into a kind Evangelical martyr-saint may prove the exception.
Was medieval Roman Catholicism marked by simony and great corruption? Indeed it was and this was in no small part due to the Church's embrace of wealth and power post-Constantine. The hierarchy and politics became entwined with and inseparable from the Church. The forms were very different from today as investiture seems utterly foreign, but it was deeply entrenched for centuries and this politicisation of the Church fostered the corruption.
If one says that American Evangelicalism is also marked by simony, the claim is likely to be met with raised eyebrows - but it is the case nevertheless. Simony is not merely the purchasing of ecclesiastical office which in medieval times was the source of power and wealth. Simony can also be defined as trafficking in the things of God. By both measures Evangelicalism is permeated and replete with simony and its leadership is as dirty and mammon-satiated as any medieval archbishop. And I'm not just talking about the over-the-top figures associated with the Charismatic movement - most of whom are little more than Baal worshippers. I find it hard to even take such people seriously and I cannot believe anyone deeply entrenched in the Scriptures would give such people more than five minutes of their time. Such leaders are self-evident prima facie frauds and their followers are utterly deceived. They can make no inroads into viable Christianity. I'm far more concerned about those who are deemed orthodox and solid Bible teachers but are every bit as corrupt even if it's only a case of millions of dollars of corruption instead of tens of millions. Maybe their tastes are little more high-brow and avoid some of the tacky ostentation of the lower classes or of people recently removed from the village in the developing world. Once again, it's a question of form, not substance.
Returning to investiture and simony, the American political-ecclesiastical system is not marked by wealthy bishoprics or monastic holdings. Rather, power is wielded through political machines - through lobbying, favours, and influence. Ministries tend to be corrupt, exploiting their tax-exempt status - itself a corruption. There's a world of grants and perks connected to think-tanks and lobby groups. Evangelical ministries and denominations are intertwined with the Republican Party and its proxies. And yes, I'm speaking of groups like Turning Point USA and the Cornwall Alliance. Denominations and ministries are deeply invested in Wall Street and through a series of middle-men, the desires of both Wall Street and Washington are communicated to Church and ministry leaders who then echo these talking points and steer their audiences. Usury which was ostensibly forbidden for centuries was at last embraced by Roman Catholicism in the context of Renaissance Italy. For Evangelicals there's not even a debate. Usury (or interest) is accepted, endorsed, and utilized.
There's massive wealth within Evangelicalism and the movement as a whole has (following in the footsteps of the Magisterial Reformation) sanctified the values of the Middle Class and it continues to glorify wealth - the very mammonism Christ declared incompatible with saving faith.
The corruption is also on display with what can only be described as 'pay to pray' worship events, which require additional funds to enter VIP circles and hob-nob with Evangelical celebrities - and the larger circle of political and social dignitaries.
The form again is very different but in substance we find a rich and corrupted 'Church' which functions more as a decentralised movement that is deeply invested in the power structure profiting from war and economic exploitation. Through lobbying, alliances, and investment this 'Church' (so-called) crushes the poor, feeds on the war machine, and engages in lavish living. And it profits off the suffering of Christians in poorer parts of the world - which tragically is twisted by many an American-trained and connected pastor. As a consequence many of these Christians in lieu of being filled with indignation at the apostasy of American Christianity - instead, they wish to emulate it, and look for ways to get to the United States and either stay or return with new financial tools and connections.
Because of the extreme examples in the Charismatic world there are many multi-millionaire Evangelicals who can by way of this false analogy justify their wealth and riches and escape any kind of moral conviction. Others believe they deserve it (and like David Jeremiah even say so) as a great deal of their wealth is tied to their 'talents' as communicators or writers - never mind that their 'ministries' which rely on donations are platforms to hawk these goods. Others pretend to be humble or embrace a rather expansive definition of 'middle class' income as they rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, while they also benefit from all sorts of housing and expense-related perks.