I’m not sure if the traffic leaving Geneva for Rome or Constantinople is picking up these days or if I just happen to see lots of websites and blogs where sentimental and ungrounded former Protestants croon about their new found love for Mother Rome. Working through Schaff’s The Principle of Protestantism, he addresses Puseyism, the Anglo-Catholic movement that sprung up in Oxford in the 19th century. He calls it a

reaction against rationalistic and sectaristic pseudo-Protestantism, as well as the religious subjectivism of the so-called Low Church Party; with which the significance  of the church has been forgotten, or at least practically undervalued, in favor of personal individual piety; the sacraments, in favor of faith; sanctification, in favor of justification; and tradition in its right sense, in favor of the holy Scriptures. I make indeed no question, but that with many who belong to this neo-Catholic school a feeling of poetical romance is more prevalent than true religious conviction; that others again, among the clergy especially, are swayed more or less by hierarchic interest; and that still a third class, largest of all perhaps, are carried along with the alluring movement by the current of mere fashion.

This speaks well to the current situation. Modern evangelicalism downplays the church in favor of individual piety. Who combines the two? Well, Rome. Kiss his ring and endure all the gaudy idolatry, but at least some service is paid to what Paul means when he says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Calvin’s high view of sacraments is hopefully making strides, but the Zwinglian mere memorial view dominates the church and can make nothing of the importance and power of sacraments in the Scripture. Find a Protestant who can quote Peter saying “Baptism now saves us” and you have endangered species hiding from heresy hunters. Rome is wrong about ex opere operato baptismal regeneration and salvation, but they are often more familiar with the texts  and their explanations more plausible on the surface than low-church Protestants.

His last point about perhaps the largest class floating out of Protestantism on the current of fashion will likely always be the case. And I think this is hopeful because many if not most of these, I believe, can be taught. They usually floated in on fashion (or family or proximity or circumstance–anything besides  conviction), but can be taught why we are here without the funny hats, celibate clergy, and crooked definition of justification. Pastors need to teach the truths recovered in the Reformation but grounded in the Bible and alive in the church throughout all of history. And beyond teaching, we need to have biblical liturgy that embraces the beauty, reverence and joy described in the Bible and incarnated in the church in various forms through the century. I’m convinced people can worship in a shoe-box if they know the vision of the church includes glorious architecture which will hopefully one day be part of the ministry. But put people in a grunge concert venue–by choice and designated philosophy–and the next generation is going to be looking for more and possibly outside the Protestant pail. Schaff offers remedy:

We too must take a wider range, and our faith in the one universal Christian Church must show itself to be, not merely a confession of the mouth, but power and truth, life and act. We too may not seek the perfection of our own communion, apart from the perfection of the entire Christian Church. We too must be like the good householder who gathers up even the fragments, appropriating to ourselves from the stores of early Christian history in particular, what has sprung from God and proved a blessing to thousands and millions.