American P.I.E. V

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

This is the fifth and final installment of the American PIE series. Part one was a not too serious introduction and part two focused on the P in the PIE: pietism in general. Part three addressed the rationalistic side of pietism and part four addressed the experiential side of pietism. This part will focus on the E in the PIE: egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism
Individualism runs throughout. For most everything of significance, authority and responsibility center on the individual. Along with this comes the belief that any individual is competent and equipped to do most anything.

Held most strongly by: General and Particular Baptists, Restoration movement churches, Bible churches, non-denominational churches, most holiness movement and Pentecostal churches, most “generic evangelicals”

The great concern of egalitarianism is: subjection to oppressive, authoritarian rulers. This, of course, is a very American concern. Egalitarianism is largely a reaction against this foe.

Core Assumptions:

1. hierarchy: Any significant concept of hierarchy is rejected. A false dichotomy is often set up between localized authority (residing in, e.g., the local congregation or the individual) and oppressive, top-down authoritarianism. The idea that the body of Christ as a whole (e.g., via councils) has judicially binding authority is rejected in favor of “autonomy,” i.e., self-law. The one/unity and the many/diversity are not equally ultimate as one would expect from a Trinitarian theology. Instead, the many/diversity is quite a bit more central and important than the one/unity. Thus, egalitarianism is inherently “polytheistic” in structure even though evangelical Protestants obviously don’t translate this over into theology proper.

2. representation: Any significant concept of representation is rejected. Direct democracy is the ideal. Since representation is a key aspect of the covenants that God has made with His people, egalitarianism is inherently anti-covenantal.

3. individual competency: Any given individual is competent to do almost anything and he is responsible for almost everything. Thus for example, all Christians are qualified and capable exegetes who should be doing most of their own biblical study/exegesis. They are also qualified evangelists who should routinely be engaged in evangelism.

Some Effects:

1. individualistic hermeneutic: “The right of private interpretation” is a common phrase. It is simply a given that everyone is a competent biblical exegete who should be doing such exegesis often and by himself (or in small groups without ordained teaching oversight). The Bible is essentially and fundamentally seen to belong to the individual instead of to the body of Christ, the Church. Because of this, many biblical passages are decontextualized and applied directly to each individual. Thus for example, passages that promise the Spirit’s guidance to specific biblical individuals, ordained ministers, or the Church in general are redirected to apply directly to each modern individual. As another example, it is simply assumed that the Great Commission was given to each individual. In reality, it was given to ordained ministers.

2. congregational form of government: Local congregations are seen as “autonomous.” Authority and responsibility are pushed to the most local level possible, and hierarchy is eliminated (as much as is practically possible without creating rank chaos). Each individual congregation does what is right in its own eyes. Even though democracy is scarcely seen in the Bible (not in the family, Church, or state), a high priority is placed on decisions made via a direct democratic (demos = people, kratos = rule) vote. This leads to...

3. sectarianism: If authority is more or less exclusive to the most local entity possible (e.g., the single congregation or the individual), factionalism is inevitable. With something like 30,000 Protestant denominations in America, “atomism” is American Protestantism’s middle name.

4. “decisionism” / voluntary membership: The Church functions far more like a club than it does a family. Having a voluntary membership is of paramount importance. Each individual must first mature and then make his own decision to accept Jesus and enter the Church. The idea that someone may be adopted into the Church without his mature input is unacceptable. This of course works against the concept of covenantal representation and it doesn’t sit well at all with the concept of Christendom (which is usually seen to be inherently compromised by formalism). This fits together well with…

5. credo-only church w/ credo-only sacraments: Egalitarianism presupposes maturity in thought and capabilities (e.g., small children and the mentally handicapped cannot vote, preach the gospel, privately interpret Scripture). Therefore, the immature are not members of the Church in any significant way (at least not formally) and the sacraments do not belong to them. Moreover, since egalitarianism rejects any concept of representation, the biblical concept of household circumcision/baptism is quite foreign.

6. para-Church focused: In American Protestantism, a significant amount of teaching comes from para-Church organizations and/or itinerant preachers that have little or no accountability to a Church hierarchy. Significant teaching also comes from small group Bible studies that do not have ministerial oversight. Compare this to how teaching is normally conducted in the Bible.

7. imprimatur process: This is nonexistent in the American Protestant world.

Continue Reading Here

American P.I.E. IV

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part V

This is part four of the American P.I.E. series. Part one provided an introduction to the series and an overview of the material to be covered. Part two focused on pietism in general. Part three focused on the rationalistic form of pietism. This part will focus on the experiential form of pietism. It will not be as developed as the rest of the series because I’m just not at home with experiential pietism. With the other parts of this series, I think I can study what I’m describing “from the inside.” But with experientialism, I must look at it from the outside (and I haven’t really been looking at it for a long period of time).

Experientialism
Individualism runs throughout. The overwhelming focus is placed on the individual’s experiences and emotions.

Held most strongly by: holiness movement and Pentecostal churches, Charismatic churches, some General Baptists, some non-denominational churches, some “generic evangelicals”

The great concerns of experientialism are: a cold, impersonal doctrinalism and moral laxity in the realm of personal behavior (two varieties of what experientialists see as formalism). Experientialism is largely a reaction against these foes.

Core Assumptions:

1. epistemological subjectivism: God is known primarily through the experiences of the individual (e.g., “feel/see the Spirit move” in one’s life and circumstances)

2. nature of experience: Experience is an emotional phenomenon, not a mental phenomenon (i.e., meeting God and having a relationship with him via Bible study is rare or nonexistent) and only secondarily is it a social phenomenon. Above all, it constitutes an immediate relationship with God. Functionally, it can often be a separate form of revelation in addition to the Bible. It may occasionally be an explicit revelatory experience (e.g., “a word from the Lord”) but it is usually more indirect and “fuzzy” and resembles an emotional state of some kind.

3. authority of experience: It is often infallible or at least unassailable in practice though it is not usually so in theory. A healthy skepticism of such experience rarely seems to exist.

4. routine and ritual: These are identical to “dead formalism.”

Some Effects:

1. doctrinal development: The theological understanding of experiential pietists is often quite underdeveloped. They don’t usually progress very far beyond the basics of Christian doctrine.

2. adding to the law (ethical subjectivism): It is often the case that underdeveloped doctrine and a relatively weak emphasis on the authority of the Bible combine with a strong emphasis on personal behavior to produce many “house rules.” These rules (e.g., don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t dance) usually have little or no biblical support but they often become important moral requirements which distinguish the holy from the carnal.

3. schism: Perfectionism and the search for authentic experience leads to many denominations and much church hopping.

4. privatization: Holiness is often understood in a way that would make Christendom impossible.

5. low view of the Church: Experience trumps the “formalism” and “cold doctrine” of a Church that has any real necessity or authority.

6. ecclesiastical order: The high authority of experience with respect to the Bible and the Church produces many para-Church ministries headed by those without formal calls, much biblical education, or much pastoral experience. They see their calls as immediate (i.e., directly from God), and often enough, their ministries take on a ‘cult of personality’ feel.

7. worship music: The importance of music is usually stressed. Worship music often consists of simple, “contemporary” songs and choruses sung repetitively. Any hymns generally date from the 19th century onward. The overwhelming focus of the songs is the individual’s personal relationship with God.

Continue Reading Here

American P.I.E. III

Part I
Part II
Part IV
Part V

This third post in the American P.I.E. series will summarize the rationalistic brand of pietism. This is a subset of pietism in general and for the most part, it describes the epistemological tendencies of some pietists.

Rationalism
Individualism runs throughout. The overwhelming focus is the individual thinking mind with much less importance given to the person living and doing within a community of people and relationships.

Held most strongly by: Particular Baptists, many General Baptists (though less strongly than the Particular Baptists), some Reformed churches (especially those who identify with 17th and 18th century English and Scottish Puritanism), Restoration movement churches, many Bible churches, some non-denominational churches

The great concern of rationalism is: doctrinal impurity, especially the kind that comes from theological liberalism or relativism. Rationalism is largely a reaction against this foe.

Core Assumptions:

1. modernist epistemology: Which basically tries to transcend the world of space, time, and creaturely finitude.

1.1 epistemological basics: Holds to an impersonal theory of truth (e.g., correspondence or coherence theories of truth) instead of seeing truth first and foremost as a Person (cf. John 14:6). Also typically holds to a foundationalist view of epistemology whereby some ideas are self evident, indubitable, and self-justifying. All other beliefs are justified in a linear fashion by either direct or indirect reference to this foundation. Additionally, a strong subject-object dichotomy is posited whereby neither the subject nor the knowing process is significantly affected by the external world. This appears as follows…

1.2 Knowing subject: The knowing subject is Descartes’ “I am,” the isolated, mature, and self-sufficient thinker (cf. the understanding of personal identity under the general description of pietism). The project of knowing begins with him and he is the final reference point for prediction.

1.3 objects of knowledge: The objects of knowledge are abstract, impersonal propositions as they reflect, in a mirror-like way, the external world. Gaining knowledge is all about propositions, evidence, and proofs. It is an impersonal, nonphysical, nonaesthetic, and abstract exercise. Personal relationships are secondary at best even though the Bible regularly uses the word ‘know’ in this personal, relational sense.

1.4 methodology and goals/results: The only truly legitimate models for thought are the mathematician (“rationalistic rationalism”) and/or the Baconian scientist (“empirical rationalism”). These are the only ways whereby a significant amount of true knowledge may be obtained (e.g., personal relationships or poetry are not thought of as good/primary models of knowledge). The knowing subject is to study the world in a detached, objective manner. The goals are to obtain objective, immediate knowledge and avoid/eliminate uncertainty and imprecision. Knowledge must be immediate and certain if it is truly to be knowledge.

2. systematization: Systematization (and systematic theology in particular) is the paramount and controlling principle of organization. The Bible as poetic narrative, typology, and/or history is given much less focus. Almost all of the important terms are abstract, systematic terms (e.g., election, regeneration, justification, sanctification) and almost all of the important debates are debates over systematic categories (e.g., individual salvation, free will, efficacy of the sacraments). Historical context, temporal flow, poetry, and typology all take a small backseat while (sometimes logic-chopping) discussions of an ahistorical, individualistic ordo salutis are ubiquitous.

Some Effects:

1. rationalistic hermeneutic: The mechanics of the text are everything. The basic methodology is that of a scientist who must analyze the raw terms and syntax of the text and arrange the bits of biblical data into a systematic whole. Commonsense realism and Baconianism are the epistemological drivers. The poetry, story, and historical flow of the text often become secondary or tertiary. The vast majority of the Bible was explicitly written as narrative history and poetry, but it is usually read “mechanically,” systematically, and more or less atemporally – as if it were a textbook (or perhaps a jigsaw puzzle, with the various proof texts functioning as pieces to be arranged in the proper order). Moreover, this hermeneutic tends to be minimalistic in how it addresses things like typology and allusions to previous scripture. This is in opposition to the typological way in which the NT regularly quotes/alludes to the OT. This flows from and fits in well with the existentialism that characterizes pietism in general.

2. abstractionism: Some facets or aspects of the Christian life that should be lived out can be turned into abstractions (e.g., justification by trust in a Person can functionally – though never officially of course – become justification by belief in the doctrine of justification by faith). It seems to be commonly assumed that Christians are known by their doctrine whereas Jesus’ statement in John 13:35 gets little emphasis.

3. definition of faith: This follows from pietistic views of personal identity and relationships as well as the views of truth and knowledge just mentioned. Cognitive assent to propositions is the heart of faith. Personal trust is usually seen as an aspect of faith but it is rarely focused on or considered to be the core aspect. Mature intellectual thought is the sine qua non of faith. The view that faith could be trust in a person apart from well-developed thoughts about that person is rejected as irrational.

4. credo-only Church w/ credo-only sacraments: Church membership is defined on the basis of mature thought and confession. At least one and often both of the sacraments are for mature thinkers and confessors alone. This point ties in with the fact that...

5. ritual: Is almost completely useless and in many cases is actually a detriment to be feared. A strong emphasis is placed on thinking and comprehending as they are abstracted and separated from bodily action. The idea that rituals are important or effectual is often met with the charge of “formalism” or with the idea that such rituals must then be viewed as being magical. One’s profession and especially one’s understanding of the propositions and logical connections that make up the ordo salutis (or the system as a whole such as dispensationalism or “the five points of Calvinism”) are what really matters. Thus, the sacraments are usually little more than symbols that function as individual declarations and/or mental reminders of something else.

6. assurance of salvation: Is a significant issue/problem in some circles. This seems to correlate well with the broader problem of epistemological certainly that has characterized modernist epistemology. And just as the modernist ultimately tries to finds certainty by grounding the knowing process in himself and his methodology, so also the rationalistic pietist who focuses on this issue tends to find certainty by turning inward. Certainty (or, often enough, doubt) tends to come from an inspection of one’s sincerity of belief and/or one’s good deeds.

7. daily behavior: Having the correct doctrines and system are critical. The importance of proper interpersonal behavior is sometimes downplayed or neglected. Arrogance and a lack of kindness/grace/courtesy can be overlooked because purity of doctrine is what matters. Because the paradigm is centered around and focused on that which is impersonal, sensitivity to actual flesh and blood persons sometimes suffers.

Continue Reading Here

American P.I.E. II

Part I
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Continuing from part one of this series, this post will summarize pietism, the first main presupposition of American P.I.E. Following this sketch of pietism in general, the next two posts will take up what I see as the main forms of pietism: rationalism and experientialism.

Pietism
Individualism runs throughout. The overwhelming focus is on the individual’s unmediated salvific relationship. Everything else is unnecessary and can easily be dismissed (or at least downplayed so that it is unimportant in practice). What really matters is the individual’s immediate (i.e., not mediated), internalized relationship with God.

Held most strongly by: General and Particular Baptists, Restoration movement churches (e.g., Disciples of Christ, Christian churches), some Reformed churches (especially those who identify with 17th and 18th century English and Scottish Puritanism), Bible churches, non-denominational churches, holiness movement and Pentecostal churches, Charismatic churches, vast majority of “generic evangelicals”

The great concern of pietism is: formalism. Pietism is largely a reaction against this foe.

Core Assumptions:

1. internal-spiritual: A false dichotomy is set up between what is internal or “spiritual” (often erroneously defined as “non-physical”) and what is external or physical. The two realms are separated so that they don’t have much to do with one another. Moreover, the internal-spiritual realm is the important one and it is not accessed via the external-physical to any significant degree. Thus, the dichotomy means that the external-physical is of little or no importance. What matters is what happens “in your heart.” Without this dichotomy, formalism is thought to be inevitable. This flows into a certain understanding of personal identity and relationships.

2. personal identity: personhood is understood in terms of the Cartesian “I am.” The individual is seen as a self-contained unit that is defined without reference to anything or anyone external to him. This unit may then interact with the external world, but neither the world nor his interaction with it has any significant part to play in the formation of his personal identity. Even the pietist’s own physical body is not essential; it is assumed to be a container that holds the real person – the immaterial, Cartesian soul. This view meshes well with…

3. unmediated salvation and relationship w/ God: A “personal relationship with Jesus” (or something functionally similar) is the only significant, salvific relationship, and it is interpreted to be a direct, unmediated relationship. Relationships and the physical world are separate things, and relationships exist and are complete apart from that which is physical. In other words, any “physical manifestations” are simply epiphenomena of the relationship, and the relationship would still exist and be fully defined apart from those physical manifestations. Thus, the created order isn’t really important because secondary, mediating causes are at best unnecessary and are often problematic. This produces a low view of the Church as God’s means of grace/salvation (therefore a low view of sacraments, liturgy, etc.).

4. perfectionism: This can take various forms. Combined with rationalism, it tends to produce a pedantic, overly exact doctrinalism. When behavior is a major focus (e.g., the holiness movement), it often produces draconian and legalistic “house rules” (e.g., don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t dance, rock music is necessarily bad). Perfectionism has major consequences for ecclesiology (see effects 7, 8, and 9 below).

5. existentialism: Past history is of little or no importance (past councils, creeds, and theologians mean little) and future earthly history is relatively unimportant (multi-generational thinking is rare; pessimism regarding the future is common; there is no meaningful concept of Christendom; “we’re just pilgrims passing through this land”). What really matters is the now (“getting saved” is a present moment, punctiliar event) and a timeless eternity in heaven.

Some Effects:

1. existential hermeneutic: Timeless and individualistic reading of the Bible where every passage is addressed directly to me today. The redemptive-historical flow of the text is missed as is the original context and audience. Moreover, sola Scriptura is twisted to teach that each individual is the final interpretive standard. Authoritative councils are out. Proper and definitive interpretation does not belong to the community as a whole. It belongs to the individual (the so called doctrine of “private interpretation”).

2. nature-grace dichotomy: Flowing from the spiritual-physical dichotomy, salvation refers to what happens to individuals only. There is almost never any meaningful focus on God’s salvation and restoration of the created order as a whole or the consequences of such. Nature (the created order) and grace/salvation are distinct and one doesn’t have much to do with the other. So while the temporary and weak old covenant may have had some “fleshy” accoutrements, this baggage was discarded in favor of the much more “spiritual” and much less physical new covenant.

3. sacred-secular dichotomy (privatization): Christendom is out of the question in any meaningful sense and the world is viewed as secular territory. With this sacred-secular dichotomy, faith is essentially private and only peripherally public (e.g., we will fight hard for a Ten Commandments monument while our civil laws are blatantly unbiblical).

4. pietistic gospel: The core of Christianity is “the gospel,” and this is defined in a pietistic manner. In Arminian circles, the gospel is the offer of salvation that is given to the individual. The gospel is the offer to each individual that he can be saved from his sins and “go to heaven.” In Particular Baptist and Reformed circles, the gospel is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is the doctrine that defines justification (as imputed righteousness) and states the relationship between it, faith (as the sufficient and efficient cause), and works (which are no cause or basis of justification). But while these views are generally true enough (though sometimes they need to be “tweaked” a bit), they are not what the Bible means by “the gospel.” At best, they are significantly truncated and individualistic versions of the true gospel.

5. ritual: Is almost completely useless and in many cases is actually a detriment to be feared. What matters is what happens in your heart. Ritual is basically equated with formalism despite the fact that it is impossible to be ritual-less (being without ritual/routine is the definition of chaos). The result is that a false dichotomy is set up between piety (conceived in modern evangelical terms) and ritualism/formalism. But in practice, pietism just creates its own rituals as it must to avoid chaos. By doing this, it fails to avoid the possibility of formalism while at the same time it downplays effectual biblical rituals (e.g., the sacraments) and distances itself from the historic Church.

6. born-againism: Milder forms see the 1st generation Christian (who was an adult covert) as the standard and norm for conversion. The idea of being a Christian from birth/infancy makes little sense. Each person must mature to some level (usually adolescence) and then go through the same conversion process (which is not necessarily traumatic) as a 1st generation, 1st century gentile from a pagan family. In stronger forms, the conversion process requires an explicit “conversion experience.” In both forms, very strong emphasis is placed on regeneration as a punctiliar, non-repeatable, non-reversible event. A rite of passage must exist and it must take place after a significant amount of maturation has occurred in order to avoid formalism.

7. pure Church: The purity of the Church is paramount. The pietist will usually acknowledge in theory that the Church before the consummation will never be completely pure with all of its members completely faithful and sanctified (i.e., it is not the same as the Church after the consummation). But in practice, he tries to erase this gap by, for example, requiring “true” faith or a conversion experience for church membership. Moreover, the pietist is quite sensitive to impurities in the Church. The rationalistic pietist will fight, die, and split over doctrinal issues at the drop of a hat while the experiential pietist will do the same with respect to issues of behavior and personal holiness. This fits in well with born-againism and usually leads to...

8. sectarianism: In a number of sub-groups within American Protestantism, a schismatic and sectarian spirit has prevailed. And even where the “party spirit” is not grossly obvious, factionalism is still a functional norm. This has produced some 30,000 Protestant denominations including many “non-denominational” denominations. The perfectionist search for the absolutely really true Church cannot help but produce this.

9. credo-only Church w/ credo-only sacraments: Whether pietism is rationalistic, experiential, or some combination, it presupposes maturity. Only a non-mentally handicapped adolescent or adult can have the kind of unmediated, “heartfelt” relationship with God that characterizes pietism. And since the sacraments are viewed as testimonies or reminders of that relationship, they only belong to those who are mentally mature.

10. exaggerated focus on evangelism: Especially common in Arminian circles, an exaggerated focus is placed on “getting saved” with salvation defined as an individualistic, punctiliar event. Evangelism, not worship, is the raison d’etre of the Church. Everything else is a means toward this end (e.g., seeker-sensitive worship). A long-term vision of inter-generational growth leading to a strong Christendom is usually lacking.

11. introspectionism: Undue emphasis is often placed on finding assurance of salvation by looking at oneself (e.g., constantly and minutely inspecting one’s outward behavior or one’s faith to see if it is good enough) instead of looking to Christ.

Continue Reading Here

American P.I.E. I

Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

In the spirit of Weird Al Jancovich meeting Augustine, here is a spoof of Don McLean’s classic American Pie in order to introduce the subject matter of this post series.

A long, long time ago
I can still remember
how the ol’ time gospel made me smile.

And with revival’s message tell
how regeneration made me well;
unmediated grace saved me from hell.

But Vantil’s postmils made me think
and from the ancients I did drink.
“Good news” I could see
was about much more than me.

The Anglo-puritan banner had
lost its luster, now I’m glad,
and I knew that I’d been gifted
the day my paradigm shifted.

So bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had my doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time you came nigh.
It’s about time you came nigh.

Did you make profession yet,
and is salvation immediate,
if Charles Spurgeon tells you so?

Is immaterial bliss the goal,
can gnosticism save your soul,
and should your child regenerate when old?

Well, I know you’re egalitarian
‘cause you think hierarchy is a sin.
Complete churches made us wince.
Man, we downplayed those sacraments.

I was a feisty five point, logic gifted
with a perfect ordo, the Church I sifted.
But modernity’s fog was lifted
the day my paradigm shifted.

I started singin’,
bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had my doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time you came nigh.
It’s about time you came nigh.

Now for some years I’ve been moving to
the Nicene catholic point of view,
but that’s not how it used to be.

When the preacher taught for the congregation
the systematics of justification
with a voice that shuddered you and me.

Oh, but while the preacher panned sacraments,
Calvin reformed my “common sense.”
My viewpoint was adjourned;
the ancient truth returned.

And while I found a federal vision,
the purists practiced endless schism,
and I sang dirges to pietism
the day my paradigm shifted.

I was singing,
bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had my doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time you came nigh.
It’s about time you came nigh.

Drums were beating in a pastor’s meeting.
The H-word flew, civility fleeting.
Controversy’s strong and spreading fast.

Some cried foul for the rancor vast.
The pastors tried to invoke the past.
The Baptists in attendance were aghast.

Now the aftermath was fear endowed
with the Southern Pres. tradition loud.
We all tried to explain,
Oh, but the tempest strength it gained!

‘Cause the pastors jumped from the frying pan,
and Machen’s heirs the flames to fan.
Do you recall how it began
The day my paradigm shifted?

I started singing,
bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had my doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time you came nigh.
It’s about time you came nigh.

Oh, and there we were at the chapel door,
a generation needing more,
with no hope for revivalism’s mend.

So come on: with objective grace endowed,
united sing Te Deum loud
‘cause bitter schism is the devil’s friend.

Oh, and as our covenant is renewed,
individualism is hewed.
Pietism’s concerns,
they are addressed in turn.

And with the ancient faith in sight
we joined in sacramental rite.
I saw angels smile with delight
the day my paradigm shifted.

They were singing,
bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had his doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time he came nigh.
It’s about time he came nigh.

I met a girl with American views
and defined for her the full “good news,”
But that fullness nearly made her reel.

I saw the old church one more time
where I’d learned my former paradigm,
but the teaching there lost much of its appeal.

And the children needed maturity
before they could come near and feed.
Despite the true words spoken,
modernity was broken.

And the pastors of the years to come
had seen enough to make them numb.
We caught the train to Christendom
the day our paradigm shifted.

And we were singing,
bye-bye, Miss American P.I.E.
Had our doctrine in a system but the system was dry.
And the Reformers were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
singin’, it’s about time you came nigh.


So now that we’ve had a little fun, I wanted to write a few posts summarizing what I sometimes refer to as “Americanized Protestantism.” What is this? It is what I’ll call the American P.I.E. paradigm – the worldview that defines the credenda/agenda (the fundamental beliefs and actions) for the majority of conservative American Protestants. I exclude from American P.I.E. the “non-American” denominations such as the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I include the denominations that either began in the US and/or, because of the nature of American society, had their most significant growth here.

So what is American P.I.E.? I think the core presuppositions of Americanized Protestantism are:

1) Pietism: Within pietism, I see two basic forms – rationalistic pietism and experiential pietism.

2) Individualism: This is right in the middle of the P.I.E. It is the uber-presupposition from which everything else flows.

3) Egalitarianism

The American P.I.E. is the web of pietistic, individualistic, and egalitarian presuppositions that forms the glasses through which Americanized Protestants view theology. (How’s that for a mixed metaphor?)

I plan to have four more posts in this series. This introduction will be followed by posts on:

Pietism in general
Rationalism (as a subspecies of pietism)
Experientialism (as a subspecies of pietism)
Egalitarianism

Individualism will not have a separate post. Since it weaves its way through all of the other presuppositions, it will more or less be defined by them.

The upcoming posts will be organized as follows:

1) Presupposition being addressed
2) A brief statement of how it relates to individualism.
3) Which denominations/communities tend to hold it.
4) The central concerns that it is supposed to address.
5) Core assumptions of the presupposition.
6) Some effects of the presupposition.

Although these posts will contain a few counterpoints here and there and some quick pokes at what I think are problematic features, the point of the posts will not be to argue against American P.I.E. Such an argument, in order to be anywhere near sufficient, would need to be book-length. Instead, I will simply seek to summarize the paradigm. Using some broad and some narrow brush strokes, I will aim to paint a fairly comprehensive and organized picture of Americanized Protestantism – from its core assumptions to a number of its significant effects. This exercise has helped me to become “epistemologically self-conscious” about the theological air I’ve been breathing for years, and I hope I can relay some of that awareness to you.

As always, when dealing with matters like these, there are exceptions to the generalizations. Categories are never air-tight. So for example, some Christians hold views that tend to combine aspects of rationalistic and experiential pietism in a rather dualistic way while others would fall somewhere between the two (i.e., the two poles are blended together in a kind of “middle ground”). But in general, this two-category scheme does seem to capture a good bit of the pietist picture. Moreover, denominations that I refer to for any given concept may not hold to all of the specifics of that concept. There is also variation within the various denominations. So these are generalizations, but they’ve been pretty accurate as far as I can tell.

Additionally, this series is not meant to imply that someone is theologically incompetent or heretical because they hold to the views being described. There are many intelligent and godly people who hold to the general paradigm that I’ll be describing. And I’m not willing to bluntly describe or critique others without giving myself the once over as well. Significant chunks of this series could well be autobiographical (describing previous held views/assumptions as well as current behavioral tendencies). Moreover, I should probably point out what may well be obvious – I’m not much of a diplomat. So especially in a forum like this, my views can seem pretty blunt. But when I use terms like ‘pietism’ and ‘rationalism’ for example, they are being used as descriptions defined by the content of the series. They are not being used as epithets. Like I said, a good bit of this stuff applies to me in some form.

I should also point out that the problems (e.g., “formalism”) that the American P.I.E. paradigm was supposed to solve are real problems. The concerns of Americanized Protestants are quite legitimate and deserve attention from those who hold a different paradigm.

Finally, I would say that this is a work in progress. It started out as really rough notes that I would make over time as I read through American Christian history, visited the worship services and activities of various denominations, etc. So these posts will hardly be polished essays. They will basically be extended outlines and can grow or change as needed.

Continue Reading Here